Attitudes to Scots
1.1 Identity and modern society.
Whenever anyone asks me my nationality I always confidently and proudly state that I am Scottish. However, upon inspection of my passport I am clearly and categorically a "British citizen." This dilemma of identity has been a part of my consciousness since my first years of high school. I am also inherently aware that on speaking about my own dual identity, I represent many modern day Scots, young and old.
The twenty-first century provides us with an opportunity for reflection on contemporary society and cultural life. Kenneth Gergen proposes, not a modern, but a post-modern view of the self. We fall victim to our own environment as it advances and new technologies emerge. We defy a daily bombardment of new and increasingly more refined information. The possibility to make contact with voices from many different nations is afforded us, and generally we are a mobile population. All these changes are transnational in nature and tend to opt for the use of a limited number of transnational languages, like English, as their medium. (Joseph, 2000b,lecture notes) This "[s]ocial saturation furnishes us with a multiplicity of incoherent and unrelated languages of the self [corresponding] to a multiplicity of incoherent and disconnected relationships. These relationships pull us in a myriad of directions. inviting us to play such a variety of roles that the very concept of an "authentic self" with knowable characteristics recedes from view." (Gergen, 1991:7) In a world where almost anything can be negotiated we can constantly create and recreate our personal and national identities, leading us often to confusion, uncertainty and a lack of enthusiasm for ,what in this case, I shall call "scottishness."
1.1.1 The struggle for linguistic identity.
Our struggle to define self and nationhood is not a novel phenomenon. The very word "struggle" denotes a continuous effort through time. Throughout the history of Scotland, there has always been one form or another of cultural revolt against the idea of Britain . In focusing on language as a marker of national identity, Scottish history tells a tale of the displacement of power and the competition for a linguistic bond which may identify a community and give it the status of "Nation." Many relatively recent studies have tried to categorise the linguistic situation in Scotland. They have discussed the possibility of a continuum along which a standard form of language and various dialects exist. Mention has been made of bilingualism (between ‘Scots’ and English, and between Gaelic and English.) Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to refer to the situation as diglossic. (Sandred,1983:20) Diglossia, in modern sociolinguistic terms, can have rather a restricted meaning; two definite varieties of the same language exist side by side. One is used to perform official functions and the other for every-day communication. This original definition excludes the possibility of a relationship between standard language and dialect. However, it has recently been broadened so that it might include such a configuration within its boundaries. Perhaps the words of Iain Crichton Smith in his poem ‘The beginning of a New Song’ best reflect current sentiments towards language in Scotland:
without dogma, but with friendliness to all
Let it be true to itself and to
its institutions mirror its beauty
These words were read by Tom Fleming at the opening ceremony of the Scottish Parliament on July the first 1999. The "three" voices in Crichton Smith’s poem are English, Gaelic and ‘Scots’, and when he refers to their "origins" I think he is commenting on the significant role in the state that each of these voices once fulfilled. From the 1370’s until the political union with England in 1707, ‘Scots’ was not only the language of state but also the language of Kings. Scottish Kings used ‘Scots’ as their vehicle for correspondence and creative writing. Legislation was debated and delivered in ‘Scots’, and children were educated in this, their mother tongue. Despite closer and closer political ties with England, leading to an ever increasing anglicised version of the Scottish tongue, ‘Scots’ remained the most spoken language in the country. It was, and still very much is, the everyday means of communication for people in Scotland. However, as the English of the new British state became the "official language", so ‘Scots’ became "peasant speech" or "Doric", to use the correct ‘Scots’ definition. (The Scots Leid, www. article) This attitude has unfortunately persisted, giving rise to a hostile education system, an anglicised media and a comparatively indifferent political community, resulting, in turn to the decline of ‘Scots’. We can compare the results from the first poll tax returns in the 1690’s with the results of the estimate given by the General Register Office in Edinburgh in 1996. The former putting the figure of citizens speaking ‘Scots’ at 70% of the then population of about 650,000, and the latter at 30% of today’s population. (Ibid)
1.1.2 A linguistic hybrid.
As a Scot myself, I paradoxically speak English, or rather, standard Scottish English (SSE). However, many of the lexical choices I make are based upon the knowledge I have of what is referred to as the non-standard "Scots dialect." These choices can really only be referred to as "scotticisms" (Sandred,1983:25) as I cannot make a simple transition from one register (SSE) to another (‘Scots’). Equally so, there are many Scottish people who speak only in ‘Scots’ and whose "switch from ‘Scots’ to English is not a clean one." (Kay,1993:17) During my research I also found that some speakers are able to make the transition from one variety to the other with ease when the social situation requires them to do so. In summary, the present day situation is that most Scots command English in one form or another, a kind of hybrid Scots-English, and many others have it as their native language. It may be plausible, therefore, to predict that had ‘Scots’ preserved the autonomy it once possessed, in Britain, we could have had a state of affairs similar to that of "[...] modern Scandinavia, with Scots occupying a position like that of [...] Swedish, and (standard) English that of Danish." (Aitken in Trudgill, 1984:519)
1.1.3 Insecurity in the linguistic community.
A speech community, according to Saussure, the great 20th century linguist, is one where a system is created based on perceived social norms. He views language as an essential social factor; something which we all have in common. Benedict Anderson adds to this notion when he posits an imagined community. A community "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion." (Anderson, 1991:6-7, in Joseph, 2000b lecture in MSc) Hence, it has been argued that the linguistic ambiguity in Scotland is due to the lack of a particularly strong attachment to community. Even within the microcosm which constitutes my research I observed a discernible insecurity amongst interviewees when they were attempting to express the role they thought language played in making them Scottish. Although they often spoke of "pride" when giving their reactions to the recording, the feeling was one of inferiority with respect to English. This has been the general trend since the Union of the Crowns; a gradual drift of "Scottish speech items in an anglicizing direction." (Aitken in Trudgill, 1984:531)
How we define ourselves in terms of nationhood then becomes a moot point, subject to the influence of personal political and cultural aspirations. With the rise of "new nationalism" in Scotland, and subsequent devolution, Scotland is caught up in an emotional dialogue between two camps; the reinvention of Scottish nationalism and the attempt to restore faith in British identity in Scotland. (Paterson, 1998 ) Emotion, for this reason, is a fundamental issue, as identity and allegiance are available to be commandeered by whoever is most successful at invoking an emotive response.
1.2 Independence for greater prestige.
A.J. Aitken, in an essay published in 1984, ponders the idea of devolution and independence in Scotland. He hypothesizes the possibility of increased prestige for both spoken and written ‘Scots’ in synchrony with the independence of the Scottish nation. "Perhaps a new SE [standard English]of Scotland might be stabilized, in which rather greater recourse to occasional Scottish elements in both speech and writing would become normal." (Aitken in Trudgill, 1984:531) Sixteen years later, devolution achieved, we can see the issues that Aitken raised as a reality. The very "enhanced prestige" that he proposed for ‘Scots’ is now a much debated topic within the chamber of the Scottish Parliament, and one which is indeed discussed with fervour and emotion.
1.2.1 European Year of Languages 2001.
2001 will host the European Year of Languages; a joint Council of Europe and European Union initiative. It is a celebration of languages and an opportunity to increase awareness among community members, including policy makers and teachers. For many enthusiasts and supporters of ‘Scots’ the coming year can be seen as an opening for increased proactivity. Within the Scottish Executive a motion was put forward earlier this year (September 7th 2000) to implement a programme of action for ‘Scots’ and Gaelic in the European Year of Languages.
"It fair behoves us ain an a tae gie muckle steer tae this Pairlement tae mak shair baith oor hame leids are gien a heize in the Year o Leids in 2001." (Irene McGugan [SNP], 2000, Official report.)
The afore-exemplification of ‘Scots’ in use in the Parliament is not an isolated instance. However, its use has been limited to occasions when a point is to be made upon the very subject of Scotland’s indigenous languages. Within the European Union ‘Scots’ can be referred to as a minority language.‘Scots’ does exist as a minority language, or "lesser used language". According to The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL), "[a] lesser used language [is an indigenous] European language spoken historically by a minority of the citizens of any given EU member state. Adjectives such as minority, regional, minorised, menaced, neglected have also been used in the context of such languages[...] but as some of these adjectives have negative overtones the Bureau decided to use the more neutral term lesser used." (William Flynn in EBLUL, www article, 1997.) As with all minority languages, but perhaps more so in this case, ‘Scots’ is in direct competition with the most dominant and powerful language in the Union; English. Hence, European funding and support would greatly encourage the implemenation of Scotland’s native languages in more public and official domains, which is after all the basic right of a nation. One of the slogans and themes for the year is that language opens doors. In the opinion of many supporters of ‘Scots’, those people whose shared objective is one to see ‘Scots’ flourish, ought to unite in a common cause and open the door to recognition of their mother tongue.
1.2.2 Education: The key to change.
According to my own general intuitions as well as to the attitudes and facts that I have found through my research, it is clear that the degree of responsibility taken towards ‘Scots’ is changing. For centuries ‘Scots’ has been the language of the children in the playground, but absolutely forbidden within the classroom walls. An anecdote related to me by a High school teacher in Selkirk, well illustrates the confusion set in the minds of many Scottish school children. This incident took place in the 1970’s. On entering her English classroom, where she was about to teach for the day as a supply teacher, she made reference to the agenda for the day using her native ‘Scots’. Apart from looking surprised and bemused, one of the pupils proceeded to scold the teacher and inform her that their "real teacher" did not let them speak anything other than "proper English" in the lesson. Twenty years later there is quite a different story to tell. In fact, I, myself, heard this teacher conversing with her pupils in ‘Scots’. There is now a growing trend of encouraging the use of ‘Scots’ in schools. Through the medium of ‘Scots’ we are afforded a rich variety of tradition, literature, music and history, which is our birthright. Curriculums within Scottish schools now take better account of this heritage, attempting to maximise the contribution that culture can make to young people’s education. It seems, therefore, that it is very much our duty as ambassadors of ‘Scots’ to protect the young child’s language. In my opinion, children should not always be corrected so that they speak standard Scottish English, instead they should learn to be proud of the way they speak.
According, however, to Irene McGugan, MSP, not enough is being done to achieve this. She does believe that education is the key, but that waiting until secondary school level is too late. Children in primary school should have better opportunities to gain access to their languages and in turn, these languages should filter through into all subject areas. She feels that, despite the presence of ‘Scots’ enthusiasts within the Scottish teaching profession, not enough use is made of them and there is a distinct lack of professional development available for them. One definite step in the right direction would be to design and effect "a meaningful role based on what they know and could teach." (Irene McGugan [SNP], 2000, Official Report.)
There is a genuine fear within the education system that we may suffer the loss of our native language. It is, however, the view of some linguists, such as A.J Aitken, that the notion of a threat to the existence of ‘Scots’ is false. He holds that " ‘Scots’ remains more ‘alive’ than any other non-standard dialect of English." ( Aitken in Sandred, 1983:116) He argues that the use of distinctive ‘Scots’ idioms, vocabulary and grammar still remains very large. Frequency of use is greater and extends over a broader social range "[..] than corresponding items elsewhere in the English speaking world." (Ibid) The perpetuation of such a myth, that ‘Scots’ is dwindling, is fuelled by the attitudes of a population and the pressure to identify oneself as part of a linguistic group. Therefore, there is a danger in attributing values to any given language. The view that a language is "bad" can often become institutionalised, through education and the official standpoint of the government for example.
1.2.3 Good Scots, bad Scots.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding the recent increase in prestige, notions of "good" and "bad" are still applied to linguistic behaviour in Scotland. In addition to this qualitative evaluation there is an equally unfortunate association of language to social stratum. The general tendency is towards a belief that the upper stratum uses a standard form of English, while those members of the community perceived as lower down on the scale of social class use the vernacular, or non-standard dialect. In the words of Labov, "most perception of language is not perception of a sense experience, but of socially accepted statements about language." (Labov in Sandred,1983:44) I would be able to agree with this proposal to a certain extent. During my line of enquiry I was surprised to observe that a number of interviewees rated the ‘Scots’ dialect, heard on the recording, as "good" when basing their opinion on linguistic identity, and as "bad" when considering social acceptability. Coexisting alongside this phenomenon I noticed that many of the participants seemed to be unaware that their speech resembled that of the ‘Scots’ voice on the recording. In fact, what was more surprising was that some of the interviewees tended to assimilate their own (‘Scots’) speech with the SSE on the recording, as if they were not aware of the considerable differences. They seemed capable of disassociating their own speech from what they heard, and freely attached their own labels to language; "posh" for SSE and "slang" for ‘Scots’. It is, therefore, my conclusion that prejudice does exist towards language within communities. In consequence, ‘Scots’, in some occasions, is viewed as less estimable by the very citizens who speak it.
1.2.4 A positive image set by policy makers.
In June 1999 a secure status for ‘Scots’ was top of the agenda for the newly born Executive. However, legislation to achieve this has been dilatory in nature. Irene McGugan highlights the presence of a Gaelic Officer in the Scottish Parliament, and the lack of such a representative for ‘Scots’. Perhaps prejudice towards ‘Scots’ could be overcome if the Executive were to set about creating a positive image for the language. It would help greatly if public signage, for example, were written in ‘Scots’. Cathy Peattie, MSP, would like to "come into the Parliament and see ‘Scots’ signage [..] if people see their language written, they will start to believe that it is their language and that they have every right to use it." (Cathy Peattie [LAB], 200. Official Report.) She believes that "active citizenship"(Ibid) should be encouraged, that is, people should be encouraged to make a choice to use their mother tongue spontaneously in all areas of life in Scotland as well as when interacting within the rest of the UK and Europe. Furthermore, it is critical that those "agencies"(Ibid) who work to promote ‘Scots’ at community level are supported. Inclusion in the European Year of Languages and consequent European funding will help to provide some of the support which is needed. The implementation of a cultural strategy could be achieved, covering innovative projects such as companies answering their phones in ‘Scots’, and the use of ‘Scots’ as a marketing tool to enhance the attraction of Scottish goods to potential customers overseas.
Although the European Year of Languages is a starting point and an opening, it is not really enough to promote ‘Scots’ to the status of official language. In addition, there are many members within the Executive who hold the opinion that there is no such language as ‘Scots’. The previous First Minister, the late Donald Dewar was quoted in an article in ‘The Scotsman’ newspaper on the 6th of September 2000; "We do not want to go down the Welsh road and end up with a situation where public bodies in Scotland would have legal obligations to conduct their business in Gaelic [or ‘Scots’]" (Donald Dewar in Scotsman article in Official Report, 2000) This lack of conviction on the part of important law makers has led to broken manifesto promises and done nothing to boost national sentiment or celebrate the indigenous languages of Scotland.
1.3 Complexity and diversity.
The reluctance in the minds of Scotland’s political figureheads to raise the status of ‘Scots’ to "Official language" may be partially due to the complexity and diversity of the language itself. In reality, ‘Scots’ is not one language only. The ‘Scots’ spoken in Caithness, for example, is very different from the ‘Scots’ spoken in Selkirk. In fact there are a total of five distinct varieties of the language. The danger of classifying these varieties as dialects is the negative connotations this definition nowadays has. "Dialect" is often used pejoratively in relation to ‘Scots’, often for political reasons. The speech community labelled as "dialect" will be favoured less by the state. However, classifying each variety as a language in its own right is also done with hesitancy. Similar variations exist equally in English, for example, the differences in the speech of people from Newcastle, Aberdeen, Cornwall and Glasgow. Jamie Stone, Liberal Democrat MSP, appeals for the use of "[...] a fine rather than a broad brush,[...w]e should encourage diversity also.[...R]emember that our languages and the variations in them are Scotland’s jewellery and that the diamond is multifaceted." (Jamie Stone [LIBDEM], 2000, Official Report.)
To avoid calumny when debating ‘Scots’and its various dialects, it is first important to disentangle it from Gaelic. Gaelic and ‘Scots’ should not be treated as two branches of the same policy. Gaelic is a clearly identifiable language, and one need only draw recourse to the amount of funding, publicity and coverage that it has received in the past twenty years or so. However, in the knowledge of the MSP, Michael Russell once again, even Gaelic used to be considered as fragmented, and not as one language. In the same way that ‘Scots’ is now thought of, Gaelic was once thought of as, "a dialect here, a dialect there, a few words here and a few words there." (Michael Russell [SNP], 2000, Official Report.) Help and assistance was given to Gaelic, to revive it as a Scottish autochthonous language, the same remedial action ought to be taken for ‘Scots’. Without adequate protection could we end up with a situation analogous to that of the ancient Egyptians? That is, where ‘Scots’ would exist only in songs and literature, with nobody to read and understand it.
1.3.2 Protection, preservation and transmission.
EBLUL believe that the maintenance of freedom of expression and respect for cultural identity includes, definitively, the protection of linguistic rights. In fact, discrimination against speakers of any language is in breach of international protocols, for example, The International Covenant of Civil Rights of People and The Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities. Irene McGugan, in the Scottish Parliament, points out "[h]ow embarrassing it would be for the Executive to defend its action or inaction in International courts during the European Year of Languages." (Irene McGugan [SNP], 2000, Official Report.)
A call by the Committee of the Regions has been made for lesser used languages to be an integral part of the European Year of Languages. The emphasis is upon furthering cultural understanding about the equality of languages (official and lesser used) and upon the role of local authorities in implementing projects and activities to aid this understanding and appreciation. The resources made available due to this cultural strategy during the coming year will hopefully let us see the intelligent beginnings of an official support system, making ‘Scots’ a priority in the need to ensure that, as "[...] a precious thing" it is transmitted to the generations of Scots to come. ( Dr Winnie Ewing [SNP], 2000, Official Report.) As we enter the European Year of Languages, the 21st of February plays host to a ‘Scots Language Day’, including lectures, workshops and readings in ‘Scots’, at the Gracefield Arts Centre in Dumfries. It is the hope of many Scots, both within the Scottish Parliament and within Scotland’s communities, that ‘Scots’ may become, once again, an essential tool of social organisation in private and public spheres.
I chose to carry out my sociolinguistic research in Selkirk, a town in the Scottish Borders with a population of 5737. My reasons for selecting Selkirk are simply that it is where both my parents were born, hence my grandparents continue to live there, and also that I know it to be populated by ‘Scots’ speakers, my grandparents included. Situated in the heart of the Borderlands, Selkirk also has a long and intimate association with the cherished ‘Scots’ author, Sir Walter Scott. Scott was Sheriff, or "Shirra" of Selkirk from 1799 until 1832.
My main objective before proceeding with my enquiry, was to investigate the attitudes of a quasi-random sample of the population of Selkirk, towards ‘Scots’. I wanted to discover how they identified with it, what their opinion of its status was, and in what contexts they thought it was most appropriate. Finally, I was interested in observing their own personal use of ‘Scots’ and hearing anything extra they had to say about it.
I firstly considered my sample. My initial expectations that the poulation of Selkirk was principally an ageing one (probably based on my own personal experience), were in fact unfounded. According to figures supplied by The Scottish Borders Council Planning and Development Department, the highest proportion of the population are aged between 35 and 55. I mentioned previously that my sample was quasi-random, by this I intend that I made an effort to interview citizens broadly representing different age groups. Although this may not be an ideal way to investigate a modern day linguistic community, it made my research easier and faster to carry out. My sample was also fairly small, 16 participants in total. My original goal had been to interview at least 20, if not 25 people. However, lack of time and willing respondents forced me to be content with the smaller sample I eventually drew. It should be noted that Labov favours a small sample, arguing that, although there is no homogenity in language, it is much less variable that other social factors, such as political views. ( Labov in Sandred, 1983.) My group of willing participants varied in age form 13 to 60+. I selected them as informants by going from door to door, and by gaining permission to enter the local High school. This access proved to be invaluable as I was able to speak to, not only many helpful pupils, but also a number of teachers with inestimable knowledge and opinions about language. All of the participants turned out to be Scottish except one, who had lived in Selkirk for 50 years.
Attitude is a very general concept which is usually measured against other co-variants, such as social class, age, gender, etc. As my research is essentially a thumbnail sketch of attitudes towards linguistic behaviours, I intended to keep my perspective relatively large. I did consider age but was less interested in other social factors. I chose to question my participants directly, so they were fully aware of the purpose of my investigation. The drawbacks with this method are that, often, people give a normative response during the interview, but will later give their true opinion, when they are free from the pressure of having to answer. However, I was successful in collating information which both confirmed and nullified my expectations. I feel my success was mainly due to the interest most respondents had in the topic. The instrument I chose for my project was a hybrid questionnaire-interview. At the outset I had intended to make it a questionnaire only, however, from the beginning of putting it into practice I realised that people understood better and gave more interesting and valid answers when prompted in the style of an interview. I designed my questionnaire around a recording I had made of a conversation between my grandmother, a speaker of broad ‘Lallans Scots’, and myself, a speaker of standard Scottish English. I recorded around 10 minutes of spontaneous discourse, I then chose one 2 minute segment as the basis for my survey. (refer to appendix 2.)
I divided my questionnaire into six parts. (refer to appendix 1.) After finding out if the respondent was Scottish and from Selkirk, I let them listen to the recording through headphones. I debated this mode of aural delivery and decided it was the best way to focus the respondents’ attention on the recording. I also reasoned they might feel less embarrassed and suffer from less interference in this way. They were then encouraged to identify and label the "languages"they had heard. Subsequently, they were asked to associate various lexical items with the two voices. I chose to expose the participants to the recording immediately like this because I wanted to secure their initial reactions. Then followed a series of questions requiring the interviewee to assimilate their own speech with what they had listened to, and to describe the differences between the two. This was perhaps the most difficult and revealing part of the questionnaire. I had not fully anticipated the problems people might have in describing a language, particularly in relation to their own.
were organised so as to explore how people evaluated ‘Scots’ in terms of status and relation to English and Gaelic. Part four constituted an attempt to measure, not only people’s reactions, but also their attitudes to the use of ‘Scots’ in different contexts. On reflection, I think this part of the questionnaire would have been more effective if I had supplemented it with realia, that is actual examples of the language in use. (newspaper articles and prose, etc.) Penultimately, I asked informants to reflect upon other people’s attitudes towards their language; corrections, comments and criticisms. Finally, I hoped that by ending my questionnaire with a moment of reflection (by asking them to complete the sentence "I think ‘Scots’ should be....) all of the preceeding questions would enable them to make a clearer analysis of their own opinions about ‘Scots’.
By exposing the informants initially, as I did, to the recording and noting down their immediate response, I was successful in achieving the results I had hoped for. Most people labelled the voices automatically as "Scottish" and "English", some using various other adjectives to emphasise the differences: "very", "broad", "typical" and "old" for ‘Scots’; "standard", "neutral", "educated" and "posh" for my SSE. Almost 20% agreed that the second voice on the recording, my voice, was "English with a Scottish accent." Only two people actually labelled the first voice, my grandmother’s, as ‘Scots’. These factors were my first indication that the distinctiveness and value of ‘Scots’ was not as clear in the minds of my sample as I had first anticipated.
The interviewees were then asked to make associations by selecting appropriate words to describe each voice. Again, I was happy with the feedback. Most people responded in the way I had expected, attributing adjectives such as " educational", "formal" and "written" to standard Scottish English, and "informal", "natural", "spoken", "spontaneous", and "pride" to ‘Scots’. I did notice, however, that people seemed less sure of differences like "national" and "official". I conclude that this is due to the fact that most respondents were unable to tell me that ‘Scots’ could be identified as an actual language. This led to confusion, as they were considering the only language to be English, while ‘Scots’ was just an accent, or indeed, as in some cases, no different from SSE at all.
I continued to receive controversial results of this nature as I moved on to ask them to describe the differences between the two voices, state which one they preferred, and to say which was most like their own. When discussing the way in which ‘Scots’ is different, the majority claimed that it was due to vocabulary and accent. Whereas, the aspects of SSE which made it distinct were its clarity, comprehensibility and its necessity for foreign travel and communication abroad. I take this to be a sign of our modern day, global thinking society. Most people nowadays recognise the importance of "English" in a transnational world. However, despite this description of standard English, and the previous lack of conviction for ‘Scots’, almost 32% of the participants said they favoured ‘Scots’ above SSE. Notwithstanding this favouritism, a further 25% had described ‘Scots’ as "a bit slang", "rough sounding" and "more drawly." I understand this to represent a paradox of perceived identity, marking linguistic solidarity and covert prestige through the underreportage of usage. Therefore, when it came to which language was most like that of each participant, I was interested to discover their opinion. Less people than I had expected claimed they were able to speak in both registers; only 18%. Equally, less than I expected claimed to speak ‘Scots’; only 25%. It should be considered, however, that many of the participants, especially some of the younger citizens I spoke to, denied knowledge of ‘Scots’, despite conducting the entire interview using it. From this I conclude that a hierarchy of ‘Scots’ does exist, where the value, importance and use of ‘Scots’ changes from generation to generation. Perhaps it is viewed as old fashioned by young Scots, even though it is, in fact, more accepted now in schools, for example, than in the past.
I asked the participants to select an answer from a), b), or c); whether the two voices were different varieties of the same language, or completely different langauges, or a standard language and a dialect. This was a way of asking a similar question to the preceeding ones, but more directly. However, I do feel this tactic may have confused the interviewees somewhat. The results were more evenly distributed than I had expected; 37% said ‘Scots’ and SSE were the same language. 25% said they were different and distinct. 31% said one was standard while the other was a dialect. I noticed the effects of the ‘observers paradox’ with this particular question, that is, that although many people responded in the way they did, it was only after the interview was finished that they gave their real opinion, which was often the complete opposite.
The aim of this section was to encourage the interviewees to consider the different languages in Scotland and to rate them on a scale of importance, for them personally and in a more general context. Naturally, 100% agreed that English was a language in Scotland, 94% of them rating it as the most important langauge in a general context and 50% declaring it as the most important language to them personally. I think these results reflect overwhelming effect that the media now has on people’s everyday lives. English has an indispensable nature in the 21st century. Similarly, due to media coverage, Gaelic was rated as quite important in a general context, although almost everyone agreed that it was not important, useful or spoken anywhere in that particular part of Scotland. At least one informant considered there to be little difference between Gaelic and ‘Scots’ when it came to defining their status as languages in Scotland, however, we can compare 75% of the sample agreeing ‘Scots’ was a language, with 87% for Gaelic. This finding confirms my belief that government initiative, public spending and a reinforced cultural strategy have all helped to raise the status of Gaelic.
Firstly, not all the collaborators gave a response to each context, but the results, in my opinion, seem to demonstrate an adequate representation of sentiments towards the use of ‘Scots’. In general, people seem to feel positively about the presence of ‘Scots’ in most areas of social life, making comments such as, "there should be no division between formal and informal", "to make things fair", "to keep a sense of identity", "communication for all" and "should be for everyone". A minority, however, felt that it was not appropriate as "not many people would understand" and "you would need to have a translation". Others were inclined to view articles in newspapers and a translation of the Bible as a break with tradition.
The one area where the results were reversed was the implementation of ‘Scots’ in schools. Although opinion was divided almost equally between "yes" and "no", the conclusive judgement appeared to be that ‘Scots’ was not suitable for use in school. Criticisms were made regarding the need "for a balance between ‘Scots’ and English", "not too much ‘Scots’", "only for specific subjects", "nobody wants to learn it, nobody speaks it" and "too different, not proper." This outcome exemplifies and reiterates the existence of evaluative attitudes towards language and the negative security many Scottish people are reported to have about their mother tongue.
The data recorded in this self-explanatory table exhibits the attention paid by people to language on a quotidian basis. It exemplifies the stigma attached to speaking in dialect, both in school and at home, as I had expected. It also demonstrates the way in which our attention is drawn to our mode of speech in different circumstances, equally in a positive and complimentary way, and a less positive, derogatory way.
Part six entailed an opportunity for participants to express freely their opinions. The responses fell into two broad categories; those who supported its free and universal use, despite previous reservations, and those who advocated a more limited use within Scotland, and even within certain ares of Scotland, only. When completeing the sentence, "I think ‘Scots’ should be.........." I recorded answers such as, "Encouraged, particularly with young people", "accepted as a language of equal worth", "used freely and people should be more tolerant of people who speak ‘Scots’", "retained and identified as a language in Scotland, each dialect should be encouraged", "...we should not be forced into speaking just to ‘fit in’", "available to any one who wants to use it", "mainly for Scotland as other English speaking countries can’t always understand", "should be retained in private conversation where possible. English should be the universal/ business language."
From my research I conclude that the more elderly participants in Selkirk were the speakers of the purest form of ‘Scots’. Despite this fact, they are still stigmatised by the belief that the way they speak is not acceptable in general terms, and in reality, is probably not deserving of the status of "Official language." However, for the younger generations and the generations to come, these people hold the key to the treasure trove of Scottish culture and heritage. Alex Johnstone, the conservative MSP, says "[...] so much of our culture depends on ‘Scots’ being understood by our young people." ( Alex Johnstone [CON], 2000, Official Report.) Minority languages, like ‘Scots’, have survived for hundreds of years, through the hardships of war and oppression. The will and determination of the Scottish people to treasure and preserve their indigenous languages will provide a substantial proportion of the effort needed to raise the prestige of ‘Scots’. It can continue to exist in the pockets of communities around the country, like Selkirk, where it remains a traditional language. However, during the coming European Year of Languages, ‘Scots’ will require support, promotion and positive legislation from the Scottish Executive. An effective programme of implementation in schools, combined with the precious contribution available from our older generation could be the beginnings of the proof that ‘Scots’ is a part of our modern day lives, our history and our culture. It is a native language of Scotland, and we can pay homage to it.