Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T13:44:02.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purism, Variation, Change and ‘Authenticity’: Ideological Challenges to Language Revitalisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

Julia Sallabank
Julia Sallabank*
Affiliation:
SOAS, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK. Email: js72@soas.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is based on recent research into the small, highly endangered language Giernesiei1 (Guernsey, Channel Islands).2 Language documentation has found unexpectedly rich variation and change in Giernesiei usage, not all of which can be accounted for by regional and age-related factors. At the same time, our research into language ideologies and efforts to maintain and revitalise Giernesiei has revealed deep-seated purist or ‘traditionalist’ language attitudes that resist and deny language change. This nostalgic view of language and culture can hyper-valorise ‘authentic’ traditions (arguably reinvented3) and can lead to reluctance to share Giernesiei effectively with younger generations who might ‘change the language’, despite an overt desire to maintain it. This mismatch between ideologies and practices can be seen at language festivals, in lessons for children, and in the experiences of adult learners who were interviewed as part of a British Academy-funded project. I present a taxonomy of reactions to variation in Giernesiei, which confirms and extends the findings of Jaffe4 in Corsica. I also discuss recent revitalisation efforts that try to bring together older and ‘new’ speakers and promote the role of adult learners and ‘re-activate’ semi-speakers. The findings support the view that full evaluation of language vitality should include documenting the processes and ideologies of language revitalisation.5,6

Type
Focus: Language Endangerment and Revitalization
Information
European Review , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 164 - 178
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

1. The name of the language has been spelt in numerous ways: Giernesiei, Dgernesiais, Guernesiais, Guernésiais, Djernezié, etc. This paper uses the Progressive Learner Spelling that the author and local researcher Yan Marquis have developed to aid pronunciation and learning. Sallabank, J. and Marquis, Y. (2017) Spelling trouble: Ideologies and practices in Giernesiei / Dgernesiais / Guernesiais / Guernésiais / Djernezié…. In M.C. Jones and D. Mooney, (Eds) Orthography Development for Language Maintenance and Revitalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 235–253.Google Scholar
2.The research was carried out in collaboration with local researcher and language teacher Yan Marquis, to whom I am indebted for information, discussions and insights.Google Scholar
3. Johnson, H. (2013) ‘The Group from the West’: Song, endangered language and sonic activism on Guernsey. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 1, pp. 99–112.Google Scholar
4. Jaffe, A. (2008) Language ecologies and the meaning of diversity: Corsican bilingual education and the concept of ‘polynomie’. In A. Creese, P. Martin and N.H. Hornberger, (Eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edn Vol. IX, Ecology of Language (Berlin: Springer), pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
5. Sallabank, J. (2012) From language documentation to language planning: Not necessarily a direct route. In F. Seifart et al. (Eds) Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication No. 3: Potentials of Language Documentation: Methods, Analyses, and Utilization (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press), pp. 118–125.Google Scholar
6. Austin, P.K. and Sallabank, J. (Eds) (2014) Endangered Languages: Beliefs and Ideologies in Language Documentation and Revitalization (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
7.One positive development is that one of the youngest adult speakers has a small child who is being raised in both English and Giernesiei.Google Scholar
8.The Channel Islands were part of Normandy at the time of the Norman conquest of England in 1066; some islanders therefore consider England to be their oldest possession. Although it could be seen as an expression of pride, this phrase is usually used to stress the unchanging nature of Giernesiei.Google Scholar
9. Marquis, Y. and Sallabank, J. (2013) Speakers and language revitalisation: A case study of Guernésiais (Guernsey). In M.C. Jones and S. Ogilvie, (Eds) Keeping Languages Alive: Documentation, Pedagogy, and Revitalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 167–180.Google Scholar
10. Dorian, N.C. (1977) The problem of the semi-speakers in language death. Linguistics, 191, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
11. Grinevald, C. and Bert, M. (2011) Speakers and communities. In P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank, (Eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
12. Trudgill, P. (1983) On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
13. Dorian, N.C. (Ed.) (1989) Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
14. Ferguson, C. and Sallabank, J. (2011) Ideologies of ‘authenticity’ in an endangered language: Change and ‘correctness’ in Guernsey French. Paper presented at the British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Bristol, September.Google Scholar
15.These terms reflect the island’s topology and have nothing to do with the sociolinguistic terms ‘High’ and ‘Low’. The island is triangular in shape, and the south-eastern varieties of Giernesiei are no longer extant.Google Scholar
16. Dorian, N.C. (1994) Varieties of variation in a very small place: Social homogeneity, prestige norms, and linguistic variation. Language, 70, pp. 631–696.Google Scholar
17. Ferguson, C. (2012) The subjunctive in Guernsey French: Implications for gauging authenticity in an endangered language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar
18. Jones, M.C. (2002) Mette a haut dauve la grippe des angllais’: Language convergence on the island of Guernsey. In M.C. Jones and E. Esch, (Eds) Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Non-linguistic Factors (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 143–168.Google Scholar
19.Giernesiei speakers often drop the first person pronoun.Google Scholar
20. Marcellesi, J.-B. (1986) Actualité du processus de naissance de langues en domaine roman Cahiers de Linguistique Sociale, 9 Sociolinguistique Romane (Rouen: University of Rouen), pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
21. Marcellesi, J.-B., Bulot, T. and Blanchet, P. (2003) Sociolinguistique: Épistémologie, langues régionales, polynomie (Paris: L’Harmattan).Google Scholar
22. Sallabank, J. (2010) Standardisation, prescription and polynomie: Can Guernsey follow the Corsican model? Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), pp. 311–330.Google Scholar
23.Since 2004 extra-curricular lessons have been run informally in approximately half of the island’s primary schools, but there are no moves to make these lessons official (see Section 2.2) .Google Scholar
24. Sallabank, J. and Marquis, Y. ( 2017) ‘We don’t say it like that’: Language ownership and (de)legitimising the new speaker. In C. Smith-Christmas and M. Hornsby, (Eds) Ideologies and Practices of New Speakers of Minority Languages (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
25. Basham, C. and Fathman, A. (2008) The latent speaker: Attaining adult fluency in an endangered language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, pp. 577–597.Google Scholar
26.It is interesting to note that members of this informal group prefer the name ‘Rememberers’, although in the terms of Grinevald and Bert (Ref. 11) ‘rememberers’ have less linguistic competence than semi-speakers. Group members consider remembering to be a more active notion than passive or latent. Terms such as semi-, passive and latent speakers (like ‘obsolescent’ or ‘moribund’ languages) are felt to have negative connotations by community members, who prefer non-disparaging terminology.Google Scholar
27. Sallabank, J. (2010) Endangered language maintenance and revitalisation: The role of social networks. Anthropological Linguistics, 52(3), pp. 184–205.Google Scholar
28. This quasi-official body was founded by a member of the island parliament in (2013) with the aim of supporting bottom-up language revitalisation efforts through fundraising. Although it reflects growing support for maintaining Giernesiei, its initial promise has not yet been realised.Google Scholar
29. Heinrich, P. (2005) Language loss and language revitalization in the Ryukyu islands. Asia-Pacific Journal - Japan Focus, 3(11). http://apjjf.org/-Patrick-Heinrich/1596/article.html (accessed 30 October 2017).Google Scholar
30.An edible shellfish and local delicacy; a pun and calque based on the English saying ‘the world is your oyster’.Google Scholar
31. Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
32. Bankston, C.L.I. and Henry, J. (1998) The silence of the gators: Cajun ethnicity and intergenerational transmission of Louisiana French. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Shandler, J. (2006) Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular Language and Culture (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press)Google Scholar
34. Thieberger, N. (2002) Extinction in whose terms?. In D. Bradley and M. Bradley, (Eds) Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance: An Active Approach (London: Routledge), pp. 310–328.Google Scholar
35.As part of a research project into learning small languages conducted in collaboration with Yan Marquis and funded by the British Academy.Google Scholar
36. Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. Issues and Implications (London: Longman).Google Scholar
37. Romaine, S. (2006) Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy, 5(4), pp. 441–473.Google Scholar
38. Woolard, K. and Schieffelin, B. (1994) Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, pp. 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Spitulnik, D. (1998) Mediating unity and diversity: The production of language ideologies in Zambian broadcasting. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard and P.V. Kroskrity, (Eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 163–188.Google Scholar
40. Ahlers, J.C. (2006) Framing discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 16, pp. 58–75.Google Scholar
41. Bruce, S. (1999) Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
42. Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
43. In some cases, older islanders had little access to education themselves. Some grew up before the full implementation of upper secondary education in rural areas. Crossan, R.M. (2016) The States and Secondary Education 1560–1970 (Guernsey: Crossan). In other cases, education was interrupted by the German occupation of Guernsey from 1940 to 1945.Google Scholar
44. Moore, R.E. (2013) Discussion paper: ‘Taking up speech’ in an endangered language: Bilingual discourse in a heritage language classroom. King’s College London Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 112. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/ldc/publications/workingpapers/the-papers/wp112-moore-et-al-2013---taking-up-speech-in-an-endangered-language.pdf.Google Scholar
45. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages (Bristol: Multilingual Matters).Google Scholar
46. Austin, P.K. and Sallabank, J. ( Forthcoming) Language documentation and revitalisation: Partners or just good friends? Paper presented at British Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, September 2014.Google Scholar