'Boris shouldn't have to apologise.' This, or a variation of it, has been the statement those on the right who wish to defend Boris Johnson's comparisons of Burqas to postboxes. And I agree. He shouldn't have to apologise, he simply should apologise. By adding the words 'have to' it takes the responsibility away from Johnson, and fuels the 'illiberal PC' narrative. He is a liberal speaking his mind but the illiberal world is forcing him to apologise. It's utter crap but that's the image a couple of additional word ('have to') can invoke.
This brings me onto the related point of Rowan Atkinson's defence of Boris Johnson. Again it boils down ultimately to free speech vs the scourge of illiberal lefties who want to shut down any dissent from the fascism of progressive politics. Supporters of Johnson have taken Atkinson's support and used it as an excuse to share a speech the Blackadder actor made a few years ago on the issue of free speech and censorship (link here). One in which he talks about how many so-called tolerant people wish to 'gag dissent'.
He goes on to state that intolerance isn't addressed by arresting or gagging people, but by these views being aired, argued against, dealt with outside the legal process. This all sounds very reasonable. In fact it is exactly what we are doing. We are arguing against Boris' comments, we are highlighting how they are offensive, who they are offending, why we think he should (not 'have to') apologise. To the best of my knowledge nobody is trying to gag him, to arrest him or to use any legal process to force him to apologise. We are doing precisely what these apparent proponents of free speech are saying we should do. I believe strongly in free speech, and in calling out prejudice and intolerance when it appears. Using free speech as an excuse to distract from islamphobia is disingenuous and helps nobody.
Whether
Scots is even a language, rather than a dialect of English, remains
controversial. According to a 2010 study commissioned by the Scottish
government suggested “for most adults in Scotland, Scots is not
considered a language.” The study found that 64% of people felt that
Scots was either not a language, or merely a dialect of English,
compared to a minority of 29% who considered Scots to be a language.
However simply because it is not widely considered a language by the
majority of the population, does not necessarily mean it is not a
language. The biggest difficulty in determining the status of Scots is
the lack of clear criteria as to what makes something a language rather
than a dialect. Scots is clearly similar to English, yet there are
distinct differences that separate it from the English language. Both
are West Germanic languages that developed simultaneously and due to
similar immigration patterns to Scotland as to England, they developed
in similar ways. Arguments in favour of Scots being a legitimate
language largely fall into two types, the first compares Scots with
other languages and the second looks into the history of the Scots
language. Scots was used by law-makers and officials in Scotland prior
to the Union of Crowns in 1603. Noblemen, officials and even the Kings
of Scotland spoke in the Scots language. ‘The Kingis Quair’, widely
thought to have been written by James I of Scotland is written in Middle
Scots, an older form of the language. These two lines from ‘The Kingis
Quair’ are a good example of Middle Scots: “Of this and that, can I
noght say quharfore,/Bot slepe for craft in erth myght I no more.” This
languages has similarities with middle english (‘y’ replacing ‘i’ in
‘myght’ for example), yet has its own distinct set of grammatical rules
that seperate it from English. The ‘quh’ before ‘quharfore’ is one such
distinctly Scots example. ‘Quh’ was used as an alternative to ‘wh’ in
middle Scots and is utilised as such throughout the quair. This rule can
be further observed in the poetry of Alexander Montgomerie. Montgomerie
was writing in the late 16th century, but the ‘quh’ rather than ‘wh’ is
still utilised by the poet. “Quhen with a quhisk sho quhirlis about hir
quheill” Middle Scots continued as a language for far longer than
Middle English did. It was not until the Act of Union that Middle Scots
shifted to modern Scots.
Proponents
of the argument that Scots is a language, such as the Scottish
government’s education website, point out the similarity between
Norwegian and Danish. ‘Scots Online’ a website dedicated to the
promotion of the Scots language, provide an example sentence in
Norwegian and in Danish. First in Danish: “Kan ikke brukes i forbindelse
med dimme utstyr eller elektronisk av og på mekanismer. Ikke egnet til
bruk i helt lukkede armaturer.” Compared with Norwegian: “Kan ikke
bruges i forbindelse med lysdæmper og elektronisk tænd-sluk-ur. Ikke
egnet til helt lukkede armaturer” Norwegian and Danish are as similar as
Scots is to English, if not more so, yet, as Scots language proponents
establish, Danish and Norwegian are considered distinct and separate
languages. Danes and Norwegains can understand each other, with little
difficulty. The same cannot always be said for native Scots speakers and
some English speakers. Scots occasionally have to modify their speech
to be understood by those with little knowledge of Scots. According to
proponents of Scots being a language, this implies that if Danish and
Norwegian are legitimately separate languages, then so to are Scots and
English. Yet this still does not conclusively prove that Scots is a
language. Denmark and Norway are separate countries from one another,
and each use their respective languages exclusively at official level.
Both languages have standardised dictionaries and grammatical rules,
neither face the problems created by a lack of defined standardisation
that Scots faces.
Both
the argument from history, and the comparison with other languages
provide compelling arguments in favour of Scots being a language, but
they are by no means conclusive. When compared to other regional
variations of English, e.g. the traditional Yorkshire dialect, there
does not appear to be any difference. The traditional Yorkshire dialect
(that is now sadly almost non- existent) was as distinct from English as
Scots is, if not more-so, yet few would argue that Yorkshire is a
language. Similarly the language spoken in the North-East of England
shares as much with Scots as it does with English, and has an entirely
unique set of linguistic rules and words, again ‘Geordie’ is considered a
dialect, not a language. The one difference between these dialects and
Scots is that Scotland is considered a nation. Historically it was a
separate country entirely, and many proponents of the Scots language
argue that as Scotland is still a separate nation (albeit one in a Union
with the rest of the UK), Scots is therefore separate on a political
level. Whether the status of Scotland as a nation, and Yorkshire as
merely a region, affects whether the respective dialects are languages
or not is unclear. Without a specific definition as to what makes
something a dialect and makes something a language it is difficult to
determine. Whether or not it is a language is unclear, however it is
currently recognised as a language by both the Scottish and British
governments, so for the rest of this essay I will be working on the
assumption that Scots is, indeed, a language. However even if it is not a
language, the case for it being historically significant is sufficient
evidence to its place in schools. Scots has clearly been significant in
both the history and culture of Scotland, and it would be a case of
double standards to omit the learning of Scots merely because of the
inconclusive nature as to its status. Whilst 64% of Scots, according to
the study mentioned above, may not believe Scots is ‘really’ a language,
55% of Scots believe the language/dialect should be taught in schools.
It
is worth questioning whether there is a political agenda behind the
increasing role Scots is taking in education. It is not a coincidence
that this increase in cultural nationalism in education is occurring
under a nationalist government. This is clearly the case. Whether this
is occurring due to a genuine belief that cultural nationalism is
important, or due to a notion that increased cultural nationalism will
lead to increased political nationalism and thus help the current
government win support for their core philosophy, is less clear. Anne
Sobey, in her essay, establishes that: “It is recognised in Scottish
nationalist circles that, without an increased sense of ‘Scottishness’
which would allow cultural separation from England, political
independence would be difficult to achieve.” This begs the question, is
the increased role of Scots (and other aspects of Scottish culture) in
schools an attempt to create cultural separation from England? It is
worth comparing Scots with the other non-English language of Scotland:
Gaelic. Gaelic Medium Education in Scotland is being increasingly
promoted by the Scottish Government, to the extent that last year they
published their intention of setting up Gaelic education in every state
primary school in the country. This may be a case of the government’s
nationalist agenda being used to foster a cultural separation between
Scotland and England. Unlike Scots, which is legitimately spoken across
the country, Gaelic is confined to very small, sparsely populated parts
of Scotland. Gaelic has not been spoken in lowland Scotland for
centuries, and parts of Scotland have never spoken Gaelic. Encouraging
Gaelic medium education in areas of the country that are predominantly
Gaelic speaking should be encouraged, and every effort should be put
into helping the survival of the language in these areas. Yet Scots is a
different matter.
Nationalism
for political benefit is potentially the driving force behind
increasing the teaching of both Scots and Gaelic in schools. For Gaelic
this creates the problem of an unimportant language being taught to
people who have no background or cultural ties to the language, yet
Scots is clearly different. Scots is spoken across the country, and 85%
of people in Scotland speak Scots to some extent. Unlike Gaelic, Scots
is clearly a language that has practical use and is utilised by most
Scottish pupils on a day to day basis. Although nationalism for the sake
of nationalism in education (and generally for society) is a negative
thing, if it helps deliver education in the language that many Scots
feel more familiar with, then (in this case) it is clearly beneficial.
Anne Sobey notes this in her essay: “A huge gap exists between the
Scottish experience and the English language”. Without the use of Scots
there is a fear of creating a two-tier linguistic system for pupils, who
are forced to learn in a language that is not, necessarily, their first
language. There has been little research done looking into the impact
of conducting lessons in Scots to pupils who speak Scots as their first
language, however what little there has been has wielded positive
results. One study by Matthew Fitt and Cathrin Howells, which looked
into the impact of Scots being taught at a Glebelands Primary School in
2005 showed an improvement in the behaviour of pupils Scots speaking
with low attainment levels. It is clear that teaching children in the
language that is more familiar, or native to them, is beneficial.
Although
there are clear benefits to teaching Scots, there are practical
difficulties associated with the language. The biggest of which is the
lack of standardisation. Unlike English, which went through a continued
process of standardisation, dating back to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary
of the English Language, Scots has had no real standardisation.
Dictionaries have been created and compiled over the last few years in
an attempt to remedy this problem, however Scots still lacks a complete
formal code that other languages have. The most comprehensive dictionary
in Scots, the Dictionary of the Scots Language, contains Older Scots,
Middle Scots and Modern Scots words, yet includes words from every
dialect of Scots. This provides another problem. Scots is made up of
many regional dialects, which differ considerably from one another. The
Doric dialect of the North East of Scotland, for example, is distinct
and separate from the Glaswegian dialect. Take the English word ‘child’
for example, in Glaswegian the correct term would be ‘wean’, yet in
Doric it is ‘bairn’. Similarly words such as ‘loun’, ‘quine’, ‘muckle’,
‘fit’, and ‘ken’, all commonly used in the Doric dialect, are not
understood by native Glaswegian speakers. All exist within the
Dictionary of the Scots Language, however. This is problematic as there
becomes no clear distinction between one form of Scots and another,
rather the collection of Scots words is a collection of different
dialects that are not heard together. The sentence ‘The wean is a quine’
is a sentence using Scots words included in the dictionary, yet it is a
sentence that would be heard neither in Glasgow (due to the word
‘quine’) nor Banffshire (due to the word ‘wean’). Teaching Scots one
must be careful to ensure that the Scots language being taught is one
that is local and makes sense to the pupils in the local area. The
benefit of learning Scots in a school in Keith would be lost if the
Scots taught was one resembling Glaswegian, rather than the local Doric
dialect.
Another
significant problem faced with teaching Scots, is linked to the lack of
standardisation, and that is how to write in Scots. Scots has not been a
written language in any meaningful way for centuries. Although poets
have written their poems down in Scots, there are huge discrepancies and
differences in how it is written. ‘To a Haggis’ by Burns provides one
example of written Scots: ‘Fai fa’ your honest sonsie face’. Burns makes
use of the apostrophe in “fa”, something which modern poets or Scots
writers would not do. The government education website advises “An
apostrophe tells us that something is missing, but in Scots words like
greetin, daein, lowpin, snawin etc, there is no missing letter g”. Tom
Leonard makes use of the lack of standardised form of Scots by writing
in a completely different way: ‘iz coz yi/widny wahnt/mi ti talk/aboot
thi/truuth wia/voice lik/wanna yoo/scruff.” These examples are both
legitimately Scots, yet entirely different from one another. Teaching
Scots, without firm grammatical rules or standardised spelling, is
difficult. Yet standardising spelling and creating one correct form of
the language is something that linguists are unwilling or unprepared to
do. There is a risk that much of the fluidity or natural flow of the
language could be lost if certain ways of writing or spellings of words
are declared incorrect. Education Scotland are aware of the difficulties
presented in writing in a language with few fixed rules, and simply
advise consistency. There is a potential problem with teaching pupils to
write in a language which does not have any rules, and there is a fear
it may have a negative impact on their English writing, a language with a
fixed orthography. Interestingly though, according to a study by Celia
Craig, conducted in Westhill Academy in Aberdeenshire, the use of Scots
actually helped pupils grasp linguistic concepts. She claims “Scots
clearly emerges as an enhancing element in pupil acquisition of language
and linguistic concepts.”
A
further practical difficulty with Scots is pupil’s difficulties in
differentiating between Scots and slang. According to the study
mentioned above, conducted by Celia Craig: “The S5/6 response at the
focus Secondary School featured pupil inclusion of what might be termed
teenage jargon words (e.g. “stonkin”, “mingin”) as Scots.” It is
therefore crucial to begin lessons in Scots at an earlier age, in order
for pupils to be aware of what constitutes Scots, and what is merely
Scots sounding slang. These are difficulties associated with a
non-standardised language. Without specific rules it can be difficult to
determine whether a word is a legitimate part of the language, or if it
is slang. ‘Mingin’, the example used by Craig, is included in some
Scots dictionaries as a legitimate word. ‘Mingin’ is derived from the
Scots ‘ming’ (meaning smell) and is legitimately used as a Scots word in
certain regional Scots dialects. Yet clearly there is difficulty in
determining whether it actually is a real Scots word, or merely an
example of slang. When it is unclear due to the lack of standardisation,
it is difficult to accurately teach children correctly. One teacher may
consider it a legitimate word, whilst another may not. Reasonable
guidelines must be put in place, but must be done so whilst being
mindful of the region one is in.
