Scots - not a language anymore
Coming from a literary background, I know of a lot of writers who choose to compose their poems and stories in the Scots dialect. I say dialect because Scots in its purest form has completely died out. It was replaced by English hundreds of years ago. People nowadays who speak Scots are therefore not speaking a separate language but rather a dialect of English, as we have replaced most of the old Scots words and grammar with that of the English language. Therefore Scots should not be taught in school as although I whole-heartedly support the Scots dialect and speak it myself, it cannot be justified as a separate language as it literally no longer exists in that sense. However I do agree that GÃ idhlig should be taught in schools as it is important to preserve the native languages that are still clinging on to surivival.
Sent by: Andrew
Comments
I do not agree that Scots is not a language, though it is under great threat as the young such as myself don't speak it, but my grandfather speaks it very broadly. We can't give up just yet, we must save it before it is gone.
We should be taught Gaidhlih and scots at school. even if it is dead, it's worth it. similar campaigns are happening in cornwall and the isle of man.
I think that England, France, Spain have a responsability in the active destruction of now minority languages and so it is normal to repair and to pay. Language is a way of thinking and to see the world.
@ Jim
You have the stories of Gaelic and Lowland Scots confused. Scots was never spoken in the Highlands outside of eastern Caithness, whereas Gaelic topography can be found as far south as northern England. The Southeast of Scotland certainly doesn't have the same transparent link to the aboriginal language of the Scots, but it was certainly spoken there if you care to examine it's topography.
It's interesting that this entire debate has been conducted in standard English. The reason for this, I think, is that standard English is merely the medium we all use to communicate with each other, irrespective of our local speech. The very fact that we can all do this without having to 'learn' English points to the fact that we are all using dialects. It's true that the relationship between Norwegian and Swedish, for example, is closer than the relationship between the English spoken in Glasgow and that spoken in Kent. However, Norway and Sweden are two distinctly different countries (one even belongs to the EU and the other doesn't) where as England and Scotland are part of the same national unit - the UK. If we afford 'Scots' dialect the status of a language, then it should also be so for many other English dialects. For example, in the Lancashire dialect still very widely used in that county, we have many, many words that you would never find in a standard English dictionary. For example, how many people outside of Lancashire or Yorkshire know what "gi upp oinin" means? Who would know what to do with "alliker" or a "degginkon"? We too have a long literary history and this is still alive and well and understood. I'm not saying that my dialect should get the status of a language because it is just that - a dialect. Yes, there are significant vocabulary differences to English, very significant grammar differences and we still retain the old Germanic forms of a formal word for 'you' and and informal one 'thee / tha'. I think what this debate shows us is that standard English is something that really only exists on the 91Èȱ¬ news, in newspapers and books and some TV programmes. It's purpose is to allow speakers of one of a number of reasonably closely related dialects to have a way of communicating with speakers of another of that groups of dialects. In conclusion, I would agree that Scots is no more a different language to English than is Lancashire dialect which by the way shares a number of words and pronunciation features with Scots and I have often been asked when in the south of England which part of Scotland I am from - although I am most definitely proud of my Englishness and my English dialect.
Me personally think that Scots should actually be taught as it is dying out and is very rare to find someone who can talk pure Scots and yes I agree that the common "Scots" language talked by many is sort of a dialect but still has many Scots words in it just mixed with English words.
I think it a great pity that everyone talks about Gaelic in Scotland and its survival but ignores the plight of Scots. I believe that I am right in saying that, whereas Gaelic was never widely understood in the lowlands and borders, Scots was understand throughout Scotland, making it the first national language of Scotland. I certainly think it is more than a dialect, although clearly its roots lie in Anglo-Saxon, from which English also derives. However, there are different linguistic influences that have shaped its development over the centuries and made it distinct from English. Are Burn's Night and New Year's Day destined to be the only times Scots can be heard?
I'm a Scot living in Norway, and it's interesting to see this language/dialect debate from a Scandinavian perspective. As a Norwegian speaker I can understand Swedish and Danish with no more difficulty than an English speaker understands Scots. The language/dialect question is primarily a political one rather than a linguistic or scientific one. When we discussed this question on one of the Scandinavian language courses I took at Edinburgh University, the lecturer gave us an excellent quote (I'm afraid I can't remember where it comes from now...) "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy."
Ullans (Ulster-Scots) is recognised as one of Europes 40 minority languages and is thus protected by law as a language this debate is over, Ullans is legally recognised as a language so lets close the book on this one please.
To begin with Scots should receive attention because it's an important part of our culture. If in England they wish to study their own dialects then that's great but let's get things in perspective. Secondly, I believe that Scots should have the same attention in schools as Gaelic. Going by the reasoning of some people that Scots shouldn't be taught because many of the words have been replaced then surely we wouldn't by trying to revive Gaelic in others where it died out many years ago. Thirdy, our perception of the word "dialect" causes arguments when, in fact, it is really doesn't matter what we call it. As we know, in China so-called "dialects" are really very different languages.
We don't talk about "dialects" anymore, but rather "language varieties." Scots is a language variety, therefore a language in itself.
Flag this comment