Attitudes

to Endangered Languages
Language attitudes and ideologies are of key importance in assessing the chances of
success of revitalisation efforts for endangered languages. However, few book-length
studies relate attitudes to language policies, or address the changing attitudes of non-
speakers and the motivations of members of language movements.
Through a combination of ethnographic research and quantitative surveys, this book
presents an in-depth study of revitalisation efforts for indigenous languages in three small
islands round the British Isles. The author identifies and confronts key issues commonly
faced by practitioners and researchers working in small language communities with little
institutional support.
This book explores the complex relationship of ideologies, identity and language-
related beliefs and practices, and examines the implications of these factors for language
revitalisation measures. Essential reading for researchers interested in language
endangerment and revitalisation, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology and language
policy and planning, as well as language planners and campaigners.
JULIA SALLABANK is Senior Lecturer in Language Support and Revitalisation in the
Endangered Languages Academic Programme at the School of Oriental and African
Studies, London.
Attitudes to Endangered Languages

Identities and Policies

Julia Sallabank
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the Universitys mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: http://www.cambridge.org/9781107030619
Julia Sallabank 2013
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2013

Printed in the United Kingdom by CPI Group Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sallabank, Julia.
Attitudes to endangered languages : identities and policies / Julia Sallabank.
pages cm.
ISBN 978-1-107-03061-9 (Hardback)
1. Language obsolescence. 2. Language maintenance. 3. Language attrition.
I. Title.
P40.5.L33S25 2013
417.7dc23 2013028560
ISBN 978-1-107-03061-9 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does
not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or
appropriate.
 Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Preface

1 Language endangerment, language revitalisation and language policy

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Language endangerment
1.2.1 Counting and defining languages
1.2.2 Development of the academic field
1.2.3 Community responses
1.2.4 Terminology and its implications
1.2.5 Communities
1.3 Common themes and discourses about endangered languages
1.4 Language endangerment and language policy
2 Small islands on the periphery of Britain
2.1 Socioeconomic, political and cultural background
2.1.1 Islandness
2.2 Island languages
2.2.1 Islands of migration
2.2.2 Language vitality
2.2.3 Language documentation
2.3 Conclusion
3 Researching language attitudes and ideologies
3.1 Attitudes and ideologies
3.1.1 Attitude shift
3.2 Investigating language attitudes and ideologies
3.2.1 Positionality: the myth of impartiality and the researchers paradox
3.2.2 How critical?
3.3 Language and identity
3.4 Conclusion: linguistic practices, perceptions and ideologies
4 Local language practices on a small island in the twenty-first century
4.1 Domains of use
4.1.1 Who uses local language: when, where, how, and why?
4.1.2 Language domains for maintenance and revitalisation
4.1.3 Language-for-performance
4.1.4 Endangered languages in new domains
 4.1.5 Language and humour
4.2 Language variation
4.3 Attrition
4.4 New speakers for old?
4.5 Writing and reading in an endangered language
4.6 Conclusions
5 Language attitudes, ideologies and identity on a small island
5.1 Traditional attitudes towards indigenous vernaculars
5.2 Language attitudes in the twenty-first century
5.2.1 The old and the young
5.2.2 Attitudes and ideologies: covert and overt beliefs
5.3 Language and identity
5.3.1 Identity, symbolic ethnicity and language maintenance
5.3.2 Distinctiveness or inclusive identity through language?
5.4 Authenticity and purism
5.4.1 Language change
5.4.2 Nostalgia: a language of the past
5.4.3 Purism and correctness
5.4.4 Language ownership and legitimacy
5.5 Conclusions
6 Language planning and policy: bottom-up and top-down
6.1 Language policy and planning for small endangered languages
6.1.1 Background and trends
6.1.2 Policy-making at different levels
6.2 Voluntary groups and grass-roots support
6.3 Official support for endangered languages
6.3.1 Official support in islands round the British Isles
6.3.2 Official language status
6.3.3 Political commitment and funding
6.3.4 Strategic planning
6.4 Linguistic landscape
6.4.1 Branding
6.5 Standardisation and spelling
6.5.1 Terminology development
6.6 Language in education
6.7 Language in the community
6.8 Conclusions
7 Implications
7.1 Emerging themes
7.1.1 From beliefs and attitudes to action
7.2 Language: a link to the past, a bridge to the future?
7.3 Is language policy about language?
 7.3.1 Identity and ideology in language policy and implementation
7.3.2 Policy about language in small communities
7.4 What makes a language policy effective?
7.4.1 Language documentation and language survival
7.4.2 Cross-fertilisation: learning from others
7.4.3 What does saving a language mean?
7.4.4 Language revitalisation: an all or nothing venture?
7.5 Conclusions

Notes
References
Index
Figures
1.1 Components of language policy (adapted from Spolsky 2009b)
2.1 Map showing the locations of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man
2.2 Map of the Channel Islands
6.1 States of Jersey public information website masthead from
www.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx
6.2 Examples of Manx signs
6.3 Isle of Man success story postcard
7.1 Sign on family support service window, Guernsey, 2009
7.2 Aims and domains of language planning for minority languages
Tables
2.1 Comparison of Guernesiais with other Romance languages
4.1 Literacy practices among traditional Guernesiais speakers
5.1 Overview of results of attitude statement questionnaire
5.2 Attitude progression among young people
 Preface
Ever since I was very young I have been fascinated by the indigenous language of
Guernsey, in the Channel Islands between England and France. I consider Guernesiais to
be my heritage language because my mother comes from the island and my father spent
some of his formative years there; but none of my family will admit to speaking
Guernesiais, although I have experienced flashbacks to scenes from childhood when
hearing certain words. From an early age I was also aware that Guernesiais (and its
speakers) were regarded with both affection and ridicule. This fascination fuelled my
passion for languages and how they work and my interest in language attitudes and
ideologies, as well as my concern for linguistic diversity and celebration of
multilingualism.
I mention this autobiographical background because researcher stance is still a hot
topic in linguistics, which as a discipline could be said to lag behind social science and
anthropology in discussion of research methods, positionality, epistemology and their
implications. This book is a sociolinguistic study of peoples reactions to perceived
changes in language use, and such research can only be carried out with people; clinical
detachment will not get you very far.
I thus position myself as an insider with activist leanings, rather than as a
dispassionate external researcher. This involvement is reflected in the use of language in
the book itself: for example, it is the reason why I say in the islands rather than on
Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.1 My background and my own feelings towards my
heritage language make me aware that subjective attachments to language (or the idea of
a language) are very real for some members of endangered language communities. I will
examine such issues in Chapters 1 and 2, but feel that I should declare the involved
nature of my research from the outset.
As I hope to demonstrate in Chapter 3, an insider perspective, and hopefully insights,
does not preclude a rigorous approach to research; nor does it prevent me from asking
questions which can at times seem difficult and unpopular.
This book is based on thirteen years of sociolinguistic study into Guernesiais, the
endangered indigenous vernacular of Guernsey, Channel Islands, and comparative
research into language policy in other Channel islands and the Isle of Man (see the map
in Figure 2.1). In the preface to their book Saving Languages, Grenoble and Whaley
(2006: ix) point out that because of differences in circumstances it is impossible to make
blanket statements about how language revitalisation should be carried out. That is not
the aim of this book either. I attempt instead to address what it means to save a
language, with particular reference to what it means to people involved and affected
in the specific contexts of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, by
reflecting on the findings in the light of theoretical concepts and frameworks such as
language ideologies, as well as findings elsewhere, I hope that the insights gained will be
of use to people involved and affected in language revitalisation efforts in other contexts
too.
Grenoble and Whaley state that an honest evaluation of most language revitalisation
efforts to date will show that they have failed (2006: ix). They do not state what
benchmark(s) they are using in this somewhat pessimistic assessment, but point out that

creating an orthography or producing a television program for children in a local

language is a major accomplishment in its own right, but it will not revitalize a
language. A longer-term, multifaceted program, one which requires a range of
resources and much personal dedication, is needed.
(ibid.)

In this book each chapter is intended to contribute towards understanding what saving
a language means, informing the discussion in Chapter 7 of success and how it might
be measured. It is clear from experiences around the world that it is probably still rather
early to draw conclusions on success or failure; language revitalisation is still a young
field, and it could be argued that several generations are needed to gauge how well a
language is doing. However, it is possible to discern trends and anticipate some likely
outcomes.
Joshua Fishman (1991; 2001), one of the founders of the field of study of endangered
languages, emphasised that the most important point of reference in saving a language
is the family: Without intergenerational mother tongue transmission . . . no language
maintenance is possible. That which is not transmitted cannot be maintained (Fishman
1991: 113). However, as pointed out by Romaine (2006), the majority of language
campaigners and planners around the world seem to ignore Fishmans advice, focusing
instead on high-stakes spheres such as formal education and official status. Although
there is relatively little discussion of official status in the Channel Islands and Isle of
Man, formal lessons have been a major focus for people who want to save the
language. Why might this be? And why is there hardly any mention of attempting to
reinstate local languages into family life?
Language supporters often launch into activities without what Fishman calls prior
ideological clarification (Fishman 1991, 2001; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998;
Kroskrity 2009). This means, for example, that there is a tendency not to specify short-
and long-term goals (except in very vague terms such as saving the language), and to
avoid evaluating outcomes. In order to investigate motivations for language
revitalisation, as well as its outcomes, it is necessary to consider questions such as the
following:
 Why is language revitalisation desirable?
Who is it for?
How do we go about it?
What is being preserved/revived?
What kind of language/culture is envisaged?
Is it effective?
And crucially, who has the authority to decide on such questions?

This type of clarification involves investigating beliefs about language, culture,

identity, language change, ownership, legitimacy and authority, which will be examined
in the chapters that follow. I look particularly at the symbolic value of language, which is
not always the same as its sustainable use in the community; I also examine other
value(s) which might be invested in language (e.g. political capital or social
revitalisation).
This book would not have been possible without, first and foremost, the many people
who have given up their time to talk to me, to fill in questionnaires, who have been
willing to be observed, etc. I would particularly like to thank the following for their key
or long-term help: Lois Ainger, Ann and Bob Battye, Peter Budd, Rose-Marie and
Jonathan Crossan, William T. Gallienne, Roslyn Guilbert, Pat Hooper, Yan Marquis,
Julie Matthews, Keith Le Cheminant and Lloyd Robilliard. Special thanks to the islands
Language Officers for information and contacts: Adrian Cain, Colin Ireson, Geraint
Jennings, Yan Marquis, Rob Teare, Tony Scott Warren. I would also like to acknowledge
the editorial assistance of Mary Chambers. Merci bian des feis / gura mie ayd!
I am also grateful for the support and guidance of my PhD supervisor, Paul Kerswill,
and to Peter Austin, Adrian Cain, James Costa, Yan Marquis and Tadhg O hIfearnin for
their readiness to discuss concepts and share information, and to an anonymous reviewer
for comments on the manuscript.
Much of the research would not have been possible without funding: from the UK
Economic and Social Research Council (for my PhD scholarship); Reading University
Research Endowment Trust Fund; the Nuffield Foundation, the British Academy, the
Endangered Languages Academic Programme at SOAS and the Endangered Languages
Documentation Programme funded by Arcadia. Working for Oxford University Press for
(too) many years gave me the opportunity to learn more about sociolinguistics and
applied linguistics, and enabled me to attend conferences such as those of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics, where I learnt about the worldwide phenomenon of
language endangerment and attended a presentation on learning an ancestral language as
an adult at the 1999 conference, which inspired me to conduct research into my own
heritage language.
Last but by no means least, I would also like to express my thanks to my partner,
Kelvin White, and our daughter, Gwen Sallabank, for their encouragement and
forbearance; and to my parents, Margaret and Roy Sallabank, for bringing me up to love
Guernsey.
1 Language endangerment, language revitalisation
and language policy

1.1 Introduction
In the last twenty to thirty years, there has been a significant increase in interest in
minority languages and the phenomena of language shift, endangerment and loss. Public
awareness and institutional support (e.g. from UNESCO or the European Union) have
burgeoned since the turn of the millennium, and popular science publications such as
Crystal (2000), Nettle and Romaine (2000) and Dalby (2002) drew public attention to the
imminent demise of between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of the languages currently
spoken in the world (the proportion cited depends on the source).
Of course, languages have developed, changed, grown and waned in importance, and
ceased being used throughout human history. However, it seems to have been only in the
late twentieth century that the loss of linguistic diversity became a cause for widespread
concern. On the one hand, such concern can be seen as a meme (prevalent idea) of late
modernity, which some relate to globalisation (Robertson 1992; Trudgill 2004; Costa
forthcoming b), and the reassertion of unique cultural identity in the face of what are
perceived as assimilationist trends (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 23). On the other hand,
linguists point to an unprecedented quantifiable decrease in the level of linguistic
diversity (e.g. Krauss 1992; Sutherland 2003) as varieties of major world languages such
as English take the place of a multiplicity of typological diversity among languages.
Indeed, it cannot be denied that there are many languages which are being spoken less
and less including those which are the focus of the case studies in this book.
As noted by Grenoble (2009), In this time, the issue of language endangerment has
engaged increasing numbers of not only anthropologists and linguists, but also members
of the general public, i.e. Western media consumers. A category which is conspicuously
absent from Grenobles list is the people belonging to speech communities that are in the
process of language shift or who are directly affected by it. As pointed out by Moore
(2007), Labov (2008) and Spolsky (forthcoming), all too often the focus in both
linguistic and popular writing is on languages rather than people (see below).
Yet people and their language practices are at the core of language endangerment and
its study: not only the most basic aspect, i.e. language choice and usage, but also their
reactions to language shift, including attempts to halt or reverse it. The term language
policy is often used to refer to such reactions, especially at governmental or group level,
although individuals and families also have language policies, albeit often not overt or
conscious ones (Spolsky 2004; Shohamy 2006). Individual and family practices may be
affected by top-down (official) policies intended to regulate or manage the ways in which
people speak, and thus language policy may be seen as cyclic: both affecting and
responding to language practices. Family practices are also highly likely to be affected by
folk linguistic language ideologies (Nieldzielski and Preston 2003; hIfearnin
forthcoming). Ideology, in its wider sense of deep-seated beliefs about language and how
it should be used, is a major influence on both policies and practices; this will be
discussed specifically in Chapters 3, 5 and 7, although it is related to virtually everything
in this book.
Much of the coverage of language endangerment, for both academic and general
audiences, has been uncritical, characterised by enthusiasm rather than reflection or
evidence-based discussion (Cameron 2007; Lpke and Storch 2013). Treatment of the
issue has also been fairly pessimistic in that it has focused largely on highlighting
language death and the threat to linguistic diversity (often in an alarmist fashion (Hill
2002)) rather than on the numerous language revitalisation movements that have arisen
during the same period.
This book focuses on responses to language endangerment, primarily in the area of
language planning and policy that is concerned with language maintenance and
revitalisation. It looks at examples of language-related activities in sociolinguistically
comparable small island polities around the British Isles the Channel Islands (between
Britain and France) and the Isle of Man (between England, Scotland and Ireland) and
relates them to theoretical issues regarding language policy and revitalisation. These
islands have roughly the same size and population, and similar sociolinguistic and
political status: all three are semi-autonomous polities with indigenous languages in
danger of disappearing. The book compares the contrasting ways in which language
policies have developed in response to the potential loss of the indigenous languages of
each island.
In the Channel Islands, the indigenous vernaculars (varieties of Norman, belonging to
the Ol language family of northern France) declined significantly in the twentieth
century and are now critically endangered (i.e. with a dwindling elderly population of
traditional speakers); however, attitudes in the two main islands, Jersey and Guernsey,
have become noticeably more positive in the last thirty years. In the Isle of Man the last
traditional speakers of Manx died in the 1970s, but since the 1980s there have been
sustained and concerted efforts to bring Manx back into use. In all three locations,
language is increasingly seen as a valuable marker of island distinctiveness, which has
led to a degree of government support, increased visibility in the linguistic landscape
and public rhetoric supporting the island languages and their symbolic value.
The book aims to address two fundamental issues in language policy:

What is meant by saving a language

What effective language policy-making for language revitalisation might look
 like.

Even in the same small community, diverse stakeholders may have different goals and
understandings of language and policy, and what it means to save a language, which
may not be stated but needs to be inferred from discourses and observations. This book
will examine examples of language-related activities and discourses, and will discuss
their rationale and outcomes and the extent to which language policy effectively supports
the maintenance and revitalisation of the endangered indigenous languages.

1.2 Language endangerment

Most overviews of language endangerment begin with the by now well-known statistics
that of the nearly 7,000 languages in the world, 50 per cent are likely to no longer be
spoken by 2100 (Crystal 2000). Fifty per cent is a conservative estimate: according to
Krauss (1992: 7), the coming century will see either the death or the doom of 90% of
mankinds languages. Krauss and his fellow presenters at the 1992 Linguistic Society of
America round table on language endangerment deliberately couched their papers in
alarmist terms: the colloquium and its published version in Language have since been
referred to as the wake-up call or call to arms to the profession of linguistics. Krausss
paper ends we must do some serious rethinking of our priorities, lest linguistics go down
in history as the only science that presided obliviously over the disappearance of 90% of
the very field to which it is dedicated (1992: 10).

1.2.1 Counting and defining languages

Krausss statistics are based largely on the list of the worlds languages in Ethnologue,
An encyclopedic reference work cataloging all of the worlds 6,909 known living
languages (Lewis 2009). The introduction to the sixteenth edition of Ethnologue
includes the statement that Because languages are dynamic and variable and undergo
constant change, the total number of living languages in the world cannot be known
precisely. Statistics on language endangerment are thus hampered by the fact that
complete information on all of the worlds languages is not available: the majority have
not been recorded or analysed by linguists, have no dictionaries and often no written
form, and are not recognised officially in the countries in which they are spoken. What
information exists is often out of date: for example, for Guernesiais, the information in
Ethnologue is based on a 1976 estimate and ignores more recent data such as the 2001
census (although even this has been shown by more recent research to be unreliable: see
Chapter 2).
The sixteenth edition of Ethnologue1 also recognises another problem with counting
languages: that the definition and demarcation of languages is itself debated. It
summarises the issue neatly as follows:
 Some base their definition on purely linguistic grounds. Others recognize that
social, cultural, or political factors must also be taken into account. In addition,
speakers themselves often have their own perspectives on what makes a particular
language uniquely theirs. Those are frequently related to issues of heritage and
identity much more than to the linguistic features of the language(s) in question.

The linguistic grounds referred to are chiefly mutual comprehensibility: if users of

two language varieties cannot understand each other, the varieties are considered to be
different languages; if they can understand each other, the varieties are considered
mutually comprehensible dialects of the same language. However, mutual intelligibility
is notoriously difficult to measure, with both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic
variables. Mary Chambers (personal communication, 5 January 2013) comments that the
level of contact between the varieties also confuses the picture all the speakers of
Kubokota, a language she has researched in the Solomon Islands, understand the
neighbouring language, Luqa, but it is unclear whether this is due to mutual intelligibility
on a linguistic level, or due to familiarity through intermarriage and social interaction.
Attitudes and politics play a role whether or not people want to understand each
other, and also whether a particular variety has enough social and political status to be
seen as a language. As well as the well-known saying A language is a dialect with an
army and a navy variously attributed to Max Weinreich, Uriel Weinreich, Joshua
Fishman or Antoine Meillet (Bright 1997),2 such attitudes are, in part, linked to whether
a community considers itself to have a distinct ethnolinguistic identity but members of
a community may not agree about this. These issues are highly relevant for the case
studies in this book.
Some linguists (especially sociolinguists and anthropological linguists influenced by
postmodern theories) now question whether language boundaries can be identified at all
(Irvine and Gal 2000; Pennycook 2005; Makoni and Pennycook 2006; Mar-Molinero and
Stevenson 2006; Ricento 2006); according to Calvet (2006: 9), Haugen (1972: 335) was
the first to express this view. As well as the difficulty of drawing lines between dialect
continua, these authors point to ubiquitous tendencies to switch, mix and hybridise
languages. Documentary linguists have been criticised for perpetuating the view of
languages as discrete entities. Nevertheless, the traditional approach to distinguishing
languages is still followed by most field linguists, as well as by Ethnologue and the
UNESCO Atlas of Languages in Danger of Disappearing (Moseley 2010). And despite
their shortcomings, at the very least such compendia provide a useful guide to relative
levels of linguistic diversity around the world.

1.2.2 Development of the academic field

Before the 1990s there was little literature on language endangerment, although there
were a few very early studies (e.g. Lach-Szyrma 1888; Brooks 1907), which can be seen
as related to the Romantic movements interest in Celtic and fringe cultures; this period
also saw a blossoming of dialect literature, including in the Channel Islands. One of the
first publications aimed at activist audiences was Ellis and mac a Ghobhainn (1971), a
fairly idiosyncratic survey of language revitalisation efforts in twenty countries, mostly
in Eastern Europe, which was intended to inspire language enthusiasts in Ireland and
Scotland with success stories. In 1977 a special issue of the International Journal of the
Sociology of Language (Dressler and Wodak-Leodolter 1977) was devoted to the theme
of language death, one of the first uses of this term.
Two sociolinguistic studies from this period have become seminal works because of
the ground-breaking nature of their research and because the phenomena identified have
been recognised by researchers in other language areas as common to many minority and
endangered language situations. The first (Gal 1979) is an ethnographic study of
language shift in a Hungarian-speaking enclave in eastern Austria, where German was
coming to be spoken more and more. Although Hungarian is not endangered in that it is
the majority language of the neighbouring country, the processes of language shift and
the underlying attitudes described are easily recognisable as pertaining to the situation of
many communities, including those discussed in this book, where these processes are
much more advanced. The second (Dorian 1981) is an in-depth study of a Gaelic-
speaking fishing community in north-east Scotland, where the process of language shift
had almost reached its ultimate conclusion in the disappearance of the local dialect.
As mentioned above, a special issue of the Linguistic Society of Americas journal
Language (Hale 1992) drew the attention of mainstream linguists to the scale of language
endangerment. At the time this was seen as a radical departure from the then-dominant
Chomskyan theoretical linguistics, which eschewed fieldwork (Colette Grinevald,
personal communication, July 2012). The collection also included papers on
revitalisation efforts and language policy in the United States and Central America.
A number of studies identify linguistic changes which occur during what linguists
term language obsolescence (e.g. part 2 of Dorian (1989) and part 3 of Grenoble and
Whaley (1998)). It is common for normal diachronic change to be speeded up and for
elements of a dominant language to enter a declining language, as structural changes and
calques as well as lexical borrowings: Jones (2000, 2002) describes this process in
Guernesiais. Although these studies focus on the effect of language endangerment on
language itself, processes of linguistic change are of course influenced by sociolinguistic
factors such as language prestige. Languages also change in the process of revitalisation,
for example through standardisation and lexical development, as well as through
interlanguage contact when they are learnt as second languages (King 1999). Although
language change is normal and inevitable, people who want to reverse the process of
language shift may see contact-induced change as undesirable or even pernicious, and
may want to restore their language to what they perceive as its pure, pre-contact state.
This has led to considerable debate in language-related movements (Dorian 1994c;
Barrett 2008; Marquis and Sallabank forthcoming), as will be discussed later in this
book.
Outside the discipline of linguistics, the United Nations took up the cause of
endangered languages, with a series of policy papers and guidelines for governmental
action plans under the heading of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO
2003b). However, a shift away from unreserved support can be discerned in recent
changes to the UNESCO website (see Austin and Sallabank forthcoming a). The
European Union also places overt value on linguistic diversity, as shown by initiatives
such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML)3 and
funding such as the European Science Foundations role in stimulating research into
language issues.
In the 1990s and 2000s, an increasing number of publications appeared which aimed
at providing principled guidance to practitioners in language revitalisation (e.g. Cantoni
1996; Reyhner 1997; Reyhner et al. 1999; Reyhner et al. 2000; Bradley and Bradley
2002; Hinton and Hale 2002; Reyhner et al. 2003; Grenoble and Whaley 2006). Many of
these concentrate on North American indigenous languages, but there are also examples
from other areas. The Foundation for Endangered Languages conference proceedings
also often have a practical focus (Ostler 1998, 1999; Ostler and Rudes 2000; Moseley,
Ostler and Ouzzate 2001; McKenna Brown 2002; Blythe and McKenna Brown 2003;
Argenter and McKenna Brown 2004; Crawhall and Ostler 2005). As noted by Grenoble
and Whaley (2006: viii), such publications are written not only for linguists and
anthropologists but also for language activists and community members who believe they
should ensure the future use of their languages, despite their predicted loss.
Since 2001 there has been an increasing number of edited collections of case studies
of language revitalisation (King et al. 2008; Goodfellow 2009; Flores Farfn and
Ramallo 2010), as well as several in-depth studies which look more closely at language
ideologies (e.g. King 2001; Kroskrity and Field 2009; Meek 2011; Urla 2012).
Nevertheless, the majority of such works constitute discrete case studies; the
development of policy and planning for endangered languages, and the processes and
outcomes of language revitalisation efforts, remains poorly documented, especially on a
comparative level.

1.2.3 Community responses

It could be argued that at the coalface of language practices in small communities,
worldwide statistics on languages are irrelevant. Perceptions of endangerment are not
necessarily related to objective assessment of the vitality of a language, even if this were
possible. It is for this reason that social psychologists introduced the subjective
ethnolinguistic vitality questionnaire (Bourhis, Giles and Rosenthal 1981; Husband and
Saifullah-Khan 1982; Johnson, Giles and Bourhis 1983; Giles and Johnson 1987; Currie
and Hogg 1994; Landry and Allard 1994b). And even if there were reliable, objective
statistics on language vitality, they would not necessarily alter perceptions. For example,
Quechua and Catalan (with 5 and 10 million speakers respectively) are considered
endangered by campaigners,4 but some supporters of Manx deny that the language is
endangered, let alone extinct.
It is increasingly recognised that language endangerment contexts are by definition bi-
or multilingual. Languages never exist in isolation, but are always embedded in
relationships with other languages and varieties, other codes, styles, registers, etc., in
what has been termed a linguistic ecology (Haugen 1972; Mhlhusler 1992, 2000;
Calvet 2006; Grenoble 2011). Multilingualism, not monolingualism, is predominant
around the world, and the linguistic practices of the majority of people involve switching
between and among languages, dialects and registers several times a day. This book
focuses on islands in Western Europe, which is not usually perceived as highly
multilingual, but impressions of a predominantly monolingual society are often
deceptive. Although Europe is the least linguistically diverse continent, it has a high
proportion of endangered languages (Moseley 2010). Until recently a large proportion of
Channel Islanders had access to a linguistic repertoire which included the indigenous
varieties of Norman (which themselves have a high degree of local variation), French
(both standard and local versions), standard English and local dialects of English
(Ramisch 1989; Barb 1995a). By no means all speakers perceive all of these as separate
or distinguishable, although attitudes towards all local varieties have generally been more
negative than towards standardised ones.
Community members are generally aware that their indigenous languages are being
used less and less, and express varying degrees of regret, lack of concern or approval.
Yet shifting patterns of language use may not be noticed by those involved at the time.
Where language socialisation is seen as a community function, parents may not perceive
a direct link between their own language practices and their childrens lack of
proficiency. As noted by Ladefoged (1992) and in my own research, parents or teachers
may feel it is in childrens best interests to learn a more widely spoken language for
educational or economic purposes or because they want their children to be spared the
bullying and discrimination that they themselves suffered for not speaking the language
of education when they started school, from both teachers and other pupils. Such
reactions are based on a monolingual Standard Language Ideology (Lippi-Green 1994,
2011) which assumes, for example, that proficiency in a language associated with power
and economic success can only be gained at the expense of proficiency in a smaller
language. It also indicates assumptions that a local language variety (or Low language
in a diglossic relationship) has less value than a High or standardised language
(Ferguson 1959; Landry and Allard 1994a; Hudson 2002; Schjerve 2003; Schiffman
2004) and can therefore be jettisoned; and that economic capital (in the terms of
Bourdieu (1977, 1991)) necessarily trumps affective feelings, the identity- and
relationship-forming functions of language, or social and cultural capital.
Members of endangered language communities (even in Western contexts) may be
unaware that other individuals and communities are undergoing the same processes of
language minoritisation and shift. If they are unaware of this, they are also necessarily
ignorant of efforts to maintain or revitalise other languages, and of evaluations of their
effectiveness. And even if they are aware of efforts in other language endangerment
contexts, they may not feel that these are relevant to their own situation (as is the case for
some people involved in language-related activities in Guernsey). What is more salient in
specific contexts are the feelings, attitudes and reactions of individuals and groups
towards what is happening in that context.

1.2.4 Terminology and its implications

As with most concepts in the field of language endangerment, there is considerable
discussion of the term language death. David Crystal, in his book Language Death
(2000), which did much to raise public awareness of the phenomenon, takes a somewhat
final view:

To say that a language is dead is like saying that a person is dead. It could be no
other way for languages have no existence without people . . . If you are the last
speaker of a language, your language viewed as a tool of communication is
already dead.
(2000: 12)

Many supporters of endangered languages dislike this finality, especially given the
relative success of efforts to revive dead languages in recent years: e.g. Cornish and
Manx in the British Isles, Miami, Mohegan and Mutsun in the United States, and Kaurna
in Australia, among others. Some feel that using the term language death may in itself
have a causative effect, hastening a languages demise. Campaigners for the Manx
language, for example, trace continuity via linguists and enthusiasts who learnt the
language from traditional native speakers in the 1950s, to a new language community of
highly proficient adult speakers who are bringing up new young native (neo-) speakers;
they are strongly critical of the use of the term language death in connection with Manx,
although the last traditional speaker died in 1974.5
Crystal (2000: 17, n. 31) defines language shift as the conventional term for the
gradual or sudden move from the use of one language to another (either by an individual
or a group). However, in the literature language shift tends to be used for the societal
process, with language loss or language attrition being used on an individual level
(Dorian 1980a; Hyltenstam and Obler 1989; Kouritzin 1999).
It is increasingly common for members of endangered language communities, or their
descendants, to want to start using languages again decades or even centuries after the
last [traditional] speakers (Broderick 1996; Amery 2001; Duffy 2002; Baldwin 2003;
Ager 2009; Zuckermann and Walsh 2011). Campaigners in Australia prefer to speak of
the awakening or regenesis of sleeping or silent languages instead of the revival
of dead or extinct ones, having demonstrated that even languages with relatively few
records remaining can be reconstituted (or reinvented). The term reclaiming is also used
to indicate that the process involves a form of decolonisation, especially where a
language has been prohibited or suppressed, as in the Basque Country (Urla 2012) or in
boarding schools in the United States and Australia. However, even attempts to reframe
such efforts in positive terms and to empower participants may be criticised, e.g. by
Leonard (2012), who claims that reclamation programmes evoke an essentialist notion
of culture whereby participants feel pressure to act, think or speak in certain ways,
particularly those that are deemed to be traditional. This point (which will be discussed
further in Chapter 5) has been raised by other writers in relation to the term reversing
language shift (RLS) introduced by Fishman, which he defines as assistance to speech
communities whose native languages are threatened (Fishman 1991: 1). This could be
interpreted as supporting or maintaining the current community of speakers rather than
developing potential speakers (Marquis and Sallabank 2013; see below). Although
Fishman denies that RLS is backward-looking, Romaine contrasts it with revitalisation,
which she characterises as not necessarily attempting to bring the language back to
former patterns of use but rather to bring it forward to new users and uses (2006: 464).
Some authors refer to this as renewal (Dunbar 2008), while Spolsky (2003) uses the term
regeneration for efforts which focus on widening domains rather than on traditional
domains of use, as in diglossic relationships. The term regeneration has been adopted by
language planning agencies in New Zealand, e.g. the Mori Language Commission,
which issued guidelines in 2007 stating that:

regenerating a language involves:

(a) raising peoples awareness of language and language issues,
(b) having positive attitudes towards and valuing a language,
(c) learning the language,
(d) continuously developing the language, and
(e) using the language.
(Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mori Mori Language Commission 2007)

As discussed by Marquis and myself (2013), there is considerable overlap and

contradiction in interpretations of the meaning and nature of the terms support,
maintenance and revitalisation with regard to endangered languages. In this book I
follow our definitions:

Language support can be seen as a synonym for language maintenance (Peter K.

Austin, personal communication, October 2007); or it can be interpreted as support
for language communities [see below], as in the Guernsey Culture and Leisure
Departments 201014 cultural strategy: Support [for] local groups in the
preservation and development of DGuernesiais [sic] (States of Guernsey 2010).
Language maintenance is (somewhat confusingly) defined by Kaplan and Baldauf
 (1997: 77) as a superordinate category that subsumes within itself . . . language
revival, language reform, language shift, language standardisation, and
terminological modernisation. However, the more accepted current definition is
that of Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 13), who draw a conceptual distinction
between language revitalization, or what Fishman (1991) calls reversing language
shift, and language maintenance, which supports a language that is truly vital, i.e. it
has speakers of all ages and is used extensively in day-to-day life.
Language revitalisation is defined by King (2001: 24) as the attempt to add new
linguistic forms or social functions to an embattled minority language with the aim
of increasing its uses or users. According to Anderson and Harrison (2007: n.p.),
Speakers create opportunities to use the language, and address the social attitudes
that triggered the abandonment of the language.
(Marquis and Sallabank 2013)

In this book I also follow predominant current usage in the distinction between
revitalisation and maintenance, as summarised by Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 13):

Whereas the goal of revitalization is to increase the relative number of speakers of a

language and extend the domains where it is employed, maintenance serves to
protect current levels and domains of use.

Marquis and I use the term language support as an overarching term for the support
(encouragement, assistance, funding) of any activities that promote the use of an
endangered language, including preservation and development (which are themselves
contested terms).
As mentioned in 1.3 below, some researchers and campaigners have linked language
diversity with the loss of biological diversity and thus with environmental campaigns.
Terms which have entered the field from sociology and environmental studies include
sustainability (King et al. 2008; see below) and resilience. Although there is a certain
amount of jumping on a bandwagon in the use of these terms, the concepts are of direct
relevance to language policies and will be discussed in Chapter 7.

1.2.5 Communities
As Whaley (2011) and Austin and I note (Austin and Sallabank forthcoming b),
documentary linguists often overuse the term community: partly as a form of shorthand,
but it is also often assumed that the community is monolithic. There is a tendency to
talk about the community as a single unit with agreed ideas, as in the language attitude
of the community itself (UNESCO 2003: 13). Costa (2013) characterises this regime of
truth as one that not only essentialises the link between language and community, but
also constructs communities as homogeneous and seeks to minimise internal and external
conflict. In my own research it has become clear that there are profound disagreements
within such communities about language, its status, domains, functions, policy and
about who has the authority or legitimacy to decide any of these. The potential pitfalls for
the nave external researcher are vast: it took me ten years to become aware of the extent
and complexity of community dynamics and their implications in a community with
which I felt relatively familiar.
When documentary linguists use the term community, or even speech community,
sometimes they mean a language community: people sharing a denotational code
(Silverstein 1996: 126) or a group of people who make use of a given lexicogrammatical
code (Jeff Good, personal communication, 18 September 2012): that is, people who
consider that they speak the same language.
Spolsky (1998: 24) explains that:

for general linguistics, a speech community is all the people who speak a single
language (like English or French or Amharic) and so share notions of what is same
or different in phonology or grammar . . . Sociolinguists, however, find it generally
more fruitful to focus on the language practices of a group of people who . . . share
not just a single language but a repertoire of languages or varieties. For the
sociolinguist, the speech community is a complex interlocking network of
communication whose members share knowledge about and attitudes toward the
language use patterns of others as well as themselves.

However, as mentioned above, the notion of a single language is itself ideological

(see Irvine and Gal 2000; Pennycook 2005; Makoni and Pennycook 2006; Mar-Molinero
and Stevenson 2006; Ricento 2006). This is all the more so in the case of endangered
languages which, as noted by Schmidt (1985) and Nettle and Romaine (2000), are
subject to extreme linguistic contact, rapid change and fragmentation (Heinrich 2005), to
the extent that members of the language community may not agree on what is the same
or different in phonology or grammar, what is correct and what is desirable in terms of
usage (Marquis and Sallabank forthcoming; see also Chapters 4 and 5).
In sociolinguistics, as Patrick (2002) notes, there is no unified definition of speech
community, but the overall broad consensus seems to follow the definition proposed by
Hymes ([1967] 1972: 545): A community sharing rules for the conduct and
interpretation of speech, and rules for the interpretation of at least one linguistic variety.
As Austin and I observe (forthcoming b), it is important to note that the shared rules
in a speech community do not imply that the members of the community have somehow
agreed on a particular viewpoint. As noted above, one of the problems with the use of the
term community in documentary linguistics is an often implicit assumption that the
community is in agreement about linguistic norms or language policy or that certain
community members, notably elders, may be delegated (or take upon themselves) the
right to speak on behalf of the community in this respect. In contexts where some
members of a community (however defined) have decided that it is desirable to reclaim,
revitalise or renew what they see as their heritage language (or at least some elements of
it), not only may the language practices of younger generations differ from those of their
parents or grandparents generation, elders preconceived notions of correctness (or
purity) may clash with language activists notions of progress (Hornsby 2005). The
issues of who owns language, and who has legitimate authority to decide on questions
of language, are highly salient in the case studies in this book.
It thus appears that in contexts where language shift or loss is endemic, there may not
necessarily be shared norms, or knowledge about and attitudes towards the language use.
We may therefore need to look for wider definitions of an endangered language
community, which might include not only people who speak the language in question, but
also:

former speakers (who grew up speaking the language but have lost its use through
many years of disuse (e.g. Ainger 1995);
semi-speakers, rememberers and all the other categories of speaker catalogued
by Grinevald and Bert (2011);
all those who identify themselves ethnolinguistically with the language and what
it means to them: descendants of speakers, learners, teachers, language activists,
etc.
people who would like to claim an association with the language by learning it or
by supporting revitalisation efforts;
other members of the wider community who do not speak or identify with the
language in question, but who interact with speakers and are affected by policies
directed at the language (e.g. their taxes might fund the policy measures).

These last two categories may include language planners (especially in small islands
where politicians and civil servants are also community members) and might also include
external researchers.
In broad terms, in an endangered language community there is frequently a distinction
between members of the traditional speaker community, and new speakers (see 4.4) who
are generally second language speakers or reactivated latent speakers (see below), or
neo-speakers who learn a revived (form of) language as young children. Supporters or
new speakers do not necessarily have or claim an ethnic association with the traditional
language community. According to Adrian Cain, Manx Language Officer: As a speaker
and teacher of Manx Im always going to have more in common with someone who has
only been on the Island for sixth months, but who is learning the language, than an old
as the hills type who has no time for Manx Gaelic. Indeed, Im a firm believer that
anyone who wants to new to the Island or old as the hills can lay claim to the
dubious privilege of being called a Manxie: its an attitude of mind and not a birth right
after all.6
The terms traditional speaker and native speaker occur frequently in this book and are
often equated. As discussed by Marquis and Sallabank (2013), a native speaker is
interpreted as having been brought up in a home where the endangered language was
(one of) the language(s) of socialisation. In many cases, people assume that someone
with such a background will be a fluent speaker; but as I discuss in Sallabank (2010a), in
a language endangerment context, there are decreasing opportunities to use the heritage
language, and many people experience language attrition: decreased fluency, forgotten
vocabulary, simplified structures, reliance on formulaic language. They may not be
aware of this process due to lack of opportunities to stretch their language use: in our
language documentation sessions, Marquis and I have found that several speakers are not
as fluent as they thought, especially when asked to produce language outside their day-
to-day comfort zone. Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 166) also observe that in many
endangered language contexts native does not refer to fluency but to the language of
ones ancestors.
Traditional speakers can also be defined as people who acquired their heritage
language via natural intergenerational transmission, but at a time when the heritage
language was the everyday vernacular or primary medium of socialisation in their family
or immediate neighbourhood. This is an important distinction in the Isle of Man, where
there was a break in intergenerational transmission of some seventy years between the
last children to be brought up speaking Manx by native-speaker parents, and the current
language revitalisation movement; but there are now children learning Manx in the home
as neo-speakers. Traditional speakers may well not be literate in their language, whereas
new speakers may learn the language through formal lessons, including a literary
standard language (see Chapter 6).
Traditional speakers usage may contain more idioms and regional variation than that
of new speakers, and may be seen as more authentic or natural, or be thought to be purer
or to have fewer contact features from the dominant language(s). This is an ideological
viewpoint which is associated with traditionalists in Guernsey and linguistic purism
generally (see Chapter 5). People who consider themselves members of the traditional
speaker community may include some who claim membership by marriage or descent.
This book will not use certain terms which have specific meanings in linguistics but
which have negative connotations in everyday currency, and may even betray less than
respectful ideologies on the part of linguists towards their subjects. Language
obsolescence refers to loss of functions or expressiveness in a language: Gradual
reduction in use, due to domain-restriction, may result in the emergence of historically
inappropriate morphological and/or phonological forms together with extensive lexical
borrowing (Jones 1998a: 56). But because of its connotations of uselessness or
outdatedness, many activists dislike the term obsolescence. Similarly, apart from its
general meaning of about to die, in language endangerment terminology moribund
refers specifically to a language which has only a few elderly speakers who no longer use
the language for day-to-day communication (Krauss 1997). Like obsolescent,
moribund has negative connotations: my computers thesaurus provides synonyms such
as past its best, dilapidated, seen better days.
I will also avoid using semi-speaker, another term commonly used by linguists to
describe speakers with limited language knowledge but who . . . can interact
competently in most situations, possibly using minimal language forms but deploying
them in socio-culturally appropriate ways (Grinevald and Bert 2011: 50). A more
positive-sounding term used by Grinevald and Bert is rememberer, which evokes the
possibility that such speakers may regain or reacquire some partial active use of the
language (2011: 51), although this describes a lower level of proficiency. Basham and
Fathman (2008: 578) use the term latent speaker, an adult raised in an environment
where a heritage language is spoken who did not become a fluent speaker of that
language. From the point of view of potential sensitivities, this is preferable to
Williamsons (1991) passive speaker. Although, according to these definitions, a semi-
speaker may be more fluent than a latent speaker, semi- evokes the now-discredited
semilingual (Edelsky et al. 1983) which is now seen as untenable both scientifically and
pedagogically, and also as pejorative (Cummins and Swain 1983; Martin-Jones and
Romaine 1986; Baker 1999: 14).7
Many of the terms (e.g. death, moribund, revival, awakening) utilise the metaphor of
anthropomorphism, which is fairly common in the field of linguistics (e.g. language
families, genetically related languages, etc.). But as Denison (1977) points out, it is of
course not languages which live and die, but those who speak them. As I discuss in
Sallabank (2012a) and below, the attribution of agency to languages rather than to people
is one of the fallacies which may obscure the causes of language endangerment and
hinder effective policies in support of linguistic diversity.

1.3 Common themes and discourses about endangered languages

In this section I make use of a framework of reactions to language endangerment
developed by Romaine (2008). I briefly discuss the three options or positions identified
by Romaine and then add two more. Each position reflects different beliefs and
ideologies regarding language and its role in society. Romaine considers them mainly
from the point of view of academic linguists a common feature of literature about
endangered languages, which tends to be written by and for linguists who do not come
from the communities whose languages they are studying. Nevertheless, similar reactions
are also found among members of the communities involved. It is therefore useful to
examine each option from this point of view.
The three reactions to language endangerment identified by Romaine (2008) are:
 1. Do nothing.
2. Document endangered languages.
3. Sustain/revitalise threatened languages.

Position (1), Do nothing, is a default policy adopted by many governments towards

minority and endangered languages. It is often thought of as no policy or laissez-faire,
but has implications as profound as any deliberate policy, not least an assumption that
minorities and their languages are not worth making policy for (and an implicit hope that
language shift and demographics will soon mean they are no longer a problem).
However, in the wording of UNESCOs (2003c) guidelines on language vitality and
endangerment, do nothing can easily equate to active assimilation: The government
encourages minority groups to abandon their own languages by providing education for
the minority group members in the dominant language. Speaking and/or writing in non-
dominant languages is not encouraged. The precise legal status of the indigenous
languages in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man remains unclear; only since 2007 has
there been any governmental rhetoric, let alone funding, in support of indigenous
language in Guernsey.
Some observers (both lay and academic) argue that language evolution naturally
includes rise and fall (e.g. Mufwene 2001, 2004); others go further and actively welcome
the disappearance of small languages and linguistic diversity, which they perceive as a
hindrance to intercultural understanding and economic prosperity (e.g. Malik 2000). This
is a common-sense folk linguistic ideology not uncommon among the Western general
public, where monolingual ideologies predominate: similar views can be read on online
discussion boards whenever language endangerment is in the news.8 Members of
endangered language communities are increasingly included in the general public who
contribute to such public forums through online media and social networking, especially
in Western contexts such as those under consideration in this book.
In response, Wolfram (2008: 9) comments:

In fact, some people would applaud language death and say that the reduction of the
worlds languages to just a few would make international communication much
more efficient. It is also true that manufacturing would be much more efficient if we
all wore the same style and the same size of dress apparel, but where would that
leave us in terms of the expression of individual and cultural identity?

Romaine challenges the conflation of language shift and death with the natural
processes of language change and evolution, for failing to distinguish change in general
from language shift and death (2008: 9). Romaines argument here assumes a clear-cut
distinction between languages, which as discussed in 1.2 has been challenged by
postmodern theorists. In the Channel Islands, it seems that some speakers and nominal
supporters of indigenous language maintenance covertly perceive the traditional
vernacular as inferior varieties of French, which until the early twentieth century was the
official language of education, religion and government (see Chapter 2). Even where this
is not the case, members of endangered language communities frequently equate
language change, especially under the influence of a dominant language, with language
decline and death (Aitchison 1981; Dressler 1982; Posner 1993; Dorian 1994c;
Hornberger and King 1996; Florey 2004; Hornsby 2005; Barrett 2008). This is also
pertinent to the case studies in this book (see also Marquis and Sallabank 2013,
forthcoming).
Romaine (2008: 9) also disputes the free market capitalism assumption that people
make a free choice to shift to another language. She notes that proponents of this view
downplay the power imbalances underlying such choices: Language death does not
happen in privileged communities; it happens to the dispossessed and disempowered
(ibid.). However, the contexts which this book focuses on are fairly privileged, Western
European societies, and members of the endangered language communities concerned
might well feel insulted if they heard themselves described as dispossessed and
disempowered. Less one-dimensional explanations for language shift, language
revitalisation, and the shifting attitudes and ideologies that accompany them, therefore
need to be examined.
Position (2), Document endangered languages, is the most frequent response from
academia, as well as from research funders. Numerous foundations dedicated to
preserving threatened languages through documentation have been set up.9 As of 2012
the latest addition is the Google-sponsored Endangered Languages Project, an online
collaborative effort to protect global linguistic diversity, which puts technology at the
service of the organizations and individuals working to confront the language
endangerment by documenting, preserving and teaching them.10 Part of this project aims
to identify existing endangered language documentation on YouTube . . . review videos
that are believed to include endangered language documentation and potentially reach
out to video owners to suggest better metadata practices and participation in the
Endangered Languages Project.11 As will be discussed in Chapter 3, there is an
increasing number of online videos in and about endangered languages, including from
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man; but as this project points out, posting online does
not preserve content long-term in the same way as archiving.
Romaine argues that positions (1) and (2) are similar in that documentation is
considered more neutral, less political and more scientific than engaging with possible
causes and remedies for language shift. Romaine (2008: 10) suggests that most linguists
would agree on the value of documenting endangered languages; yet as noted in 1.2,
even language documentation is considered radical in some strict theoretical
interpretations of the discipline of linguistics. Following Dorian (1993a), Romaine argues
that language documentation is no less a political act than any other intervention,
although numerous linguists are willing to undertake overtly political actions in support
of languages and their speakers.12 The role of the external linguist in language
documentation and revitalisation has been discussed extensively, focusing mainly on
research ethics and collaboration with communities (e.g. Ostler 1998; Hinton 2002;
Grinevald 2003; Newman 2003; Dobrin 2005, 2008; Rice 2009; Speas 2009; Grenoble
and Furbee 2010). In my own research, I have found that simply expressing interest in a
traditionally low-status language variety can contribute towards awareness-raising and
the (re)valorising of that variety, and thus to a general change in attitudes (and perhaps
policies and practices). The researcher thus becomes part of the phenomenon studied
(this will be discussed further in Chapter 3).
There is also a danger that linguists may be perceived as self-serving in their desire to
preserve linguistic diversity as a field of study. I was criticised for this (only partly in
jest) following an interview on BBC Radio Jersey in May 2009. I had previously been
interviewed by radio stations in the Channel Islands several times, but had never been
asked the question why bother saving this language? It seemed to be assumed that
support for language maintenance was normal, and with hindsight I had become lax in
not preparing possible answers to such questions. So I was caught wrong-footed and did
not want to emphasise links between language and identity, as I knew that many
islanders felt fully local without speaking the indigenous language (e.g. Skeet 2000): see
Chapter 5. This meant that I inadvertently gave the impression that a major reason for
saving endangered languages was to ensure jobs for linguists.
Nevertheless, the presumption of greater scientific objectivity is the reason why most
funding bodies provide funds only for language documentation and description, and not
for language revitalisation neither for the efforts themselves (e.g. producing language
teaching materials), nor for studies of the social processes involved. There is an ongoing
and unresolved tension between, on the one hand, the traditional priorities of linguists,
whose main concern is to preserve records of key languages before they become extinct
(from the NEH Documenting Endangered Languages website8), with the main
beneficiaries being descriptive linguistics, especially typology; and secondly, rhetoric
such as the aim to create a repository of resources for the linguistic, social science, and
the language communities (my emphasis), taken from the web page of the Endangered
Languages Documentation Programme,8 whose application form promotes an ethical
position to give something back to language communities. Both stop short of
Romaines position (3), Sustain/revitalise threatened languages, which is what an
increasing number of endangered language community members want (Grenoble 2009).
The production of educational materials for endangered languages is not usually
integrated into language documentation projects (Rice 2010; Mosel 2012); it is difficult
to obtain funding for materials without government support.
Position (3) does not always follow on naturally from (2), language documentation
(Sallabank 2012b). According to Sugita (2007), the main emphasis of endangered
language study remains on documenting linguistic structures by eliciting data through
interviews or storytelling of the oldest informants. Genres such as monologue narratives,
word lists and (sometimes) songs continue to dominate the types of material collected.
Sugita (2007) and Amery (2009) propose that documentation should also include natural
interactional data, language functions, idiomatic expressions and commonly occurring
speech formulas, as well as conversations about everyday life, especially in non-
traditional contexts particularly intergenerational interaction, including code-switching
and the language practices of the younger generation (assuming they speak the language
at all).
Language revitalisation efforts and language documentation often have divergent
goals and strategies. As noted by Kipp (2009), All you need for language revitalization
is a room and some adults speaking the language to some kids. Linguistic experts are not
necessary: You can be an excellent driver without knowing how your cars engine
works, you can be an excellent language teacher without knowing how to do linguistic
analysis (Speas 2009). Conversely, according to Gerdts (2010), linguists who are trained
mainly in phonology, morphology and syntax cannot help with the most crucial needs of
an endangered language (by which Gerdts means teaching). This is increasingly being
recognised, with calls for increased collaboration with both communities and other
specialists such as applied linguists (Christison and Hayes-Harb 2006; Cope 2012). But
community-based activists may not see the point in spending time on documentation
when action for revitalisation is urgent. They may also not welcome what they see as
outside interference: Communities want their language and culture back. They want
control of all aspects of education and research. They want autonomy. They want to do
the work themselves without help from foreign experts (Gerdts 1998).
Like colleagues, I have also heard responses such as that there is no need to document
a language while there are still fluent speakers. Yet if there is to be a record of the
language in use as a medium of communication, with as much as remains of its
idiomaticity and regional, age-related and idiolectal variation, this is the very time that
documentation needs to be done especially if fluent speakers might not be around much
longer. One of the current tenets of applied linguistics and lexicography is that language
teaching and reference materials need a basis in description, which entails the creation of
a corpus of language in use (although this is also an ideological position that some
members of speech communities disagree with, especially those who favour a more
purist approach).
In the Isle of Man, the forethought of policy-makers and linguists in the early and mid
twentieth century in documenting Manx in use was invaluable for the revival of Manx. In
the United States, Breath of Life workshops pair linguists with people from endangered
language communities who no longer have any fluent, first language speakers, in order to
teach them how to access and use archived material.13
Equally, maintaining a language in use extends the time available for documentation,
as well as increasing options in terms of policy-making and language planning (see 1.4).
Romaine (2008: 19) points out that when we lose sight of people and the communities
that sustain languages, it becomes easy to argue, as a number of critics have, that there is
no reason to preserve languages for their own sake.
Romaine (2008) emphasises the importance of an ecological approach to language
planning, that is, maintaining living languages in their linguistic ecologies (Mhlhusler
1992, 2000; Bastardas-Boada 2005; Calvet 2006; Grenoble 2011). The analogy of
ecology, first elaborated by Haugen (1972), was intended to illustrate and promote the
study of the interplay of varieties in their contexts (environments) as opposed to the
discrete study of separate languages. Ecolinguists vary as to how literally they take the
link between language and natural ecology. Haugen originally saw the ecosystem as a
metaphor, and Mackey warns of the dangers of the fallacy of dealing with language as
if it were an organism, emphasising that language is a form of human cultural behaviour
which has to be learned as a trait or skill identified with a group of people ([1980]
2001: 67).
Following Krauss (1992), many of the popular linguistics books mentioned in 1.1, as
well as websites, organisations such as UNESCO14 and Terralingua,15 and media
coverage of language endangerment, draw a parallel between linguistic
diversity/endangerment and biodiversity. However, like many of the arguments which
have been deemed expedient for raising awareness of the issue, this can be seen as
oversimplistic and in some ways inaccurate, and furthermore has been criticised for
avoiding some of the more political or unpalatable aspects and causes of linguistic
marginalisation (e.g. Cameron 2007). This will be explored further with regard to
position (4) below.
At its most radical, an ecological approach to language planning challenges the
traditional distinction between language and dialect (see 1.2) and also the typical
emphasis of language revitalisation on the need for standardisation, questioning the
validity of a single language concept for different ways of speaking (Mhlhusler 2000:
306). This foreshadows the current critical turn in linguistic anthropology which will be
discussed further with regard to (5) below.
Furthermore, it needs to be recognised that for minorities under pressure, their current
social, economic, linguistic, political and cultural ecologies are not necessarily healthy. It
is therefore necessary to look beyond preservation or maintenance towards creating
sustainable contexts in which people are able to make truly free language choices.
In addition to the three positions proposed by Romaine (2008), two further responses
to language endangerment can be identified:

4. Address social factors in language shift and language policies.

5. The critical turn.
 Position (4), Address social factors in language shift and language policies, is an
extension of (3) that includes wider socioeconomic, political and assimilatory pressures
on communities associated with minority languages, and thus addresses a wider range of
factors in minoritisation and language endangerment. Romaine touches on this:
Maintaining cultural and linguistic diversity is a matter of social justice because
distinctiveness in culture and language has formed the basis for defining human
identities (2008: 19). In contrast, Labov (2008: 219, in the same collection of papers)
contends that segregation, which has maintained the African-American dialect of
English, combined with increasing poverty, has led to a deterioration of many features
of social life in the inner cities.
Economic necessity and internalised ideologies of language inferiority can lead to
linguistic and cultural shift. Williams (1992), Blommaert (2001) and Sealey and Carter
(2004) see language minoritisation as a symptom of wider hegemonic ideologies which
normalise social and political inequalities. As noted by Eckert (1980: 1055), the promise
of socioeconomic mobility has led masses of labouring people to abandon their
vernacular language. But Nettle and Romaine (2000) point out that linguistic minorities
do not always gain the hoped-for benefits from shifting to a new language language
itself is rarely the major reason for discrimination and disadvantage. Although diglossia
the use of two or more language varieties in different domains, in complementary
distribution is seen by some as essential for the acceptance of more than one language
in a society (Fasold 1984; Hudson 2002), others such as Eckert (1980), Gumperz (1989)
and Romaine (2002) claim that diglossia is inherently unstable, especially in modern
societies, because it relies on institutionalised social inequality. For this reason a goal of
many revitalisation movements is to transcend diglossia (Fishman 1991) and raise the
status of vernacular ways of speaking. Williams (1992: 133) observes that the survival
of minority languages invariably depends . . . upon the ability to shift the language into
new domains of language activity, although, as noted by Romaine (2002b), this
effectively puts a language into the hands of the institutions which formerly marginalised
it, and also reproduces traditional hegemonic language hierarchies (see (5)).
Although, as noted above, many people in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
reject the notion that they were oppressed, indigenous ways of speaking were until
recently seen as backward (see Chapter 5). The perception of minority languages as
associated with hard times is tenacious in many communities, including these case
studies, which can discourage language maintenance.
Position (5), The critical turn, may be a sign that the study of language
endangerment is becoming mature, or even mainstream, that there is debate and criticism
of the rhetorics and methodologies of language documentation and revitalisation: chiefly
from the field of linguistic anthropology (Hill 2002; Mufwene 2004; Duchne and Heller
2007; Costa 2010, 2013) but also from within (Dobrin, Austin et al. 2009; Grenoble and
Furbee 2010; Lpke and Storch 2013).
 As mentioned in 1.2, perceptions of language endangerment are not necessarily
connected to objective measures of vitality. Some critical analysts, such as Duchne and
Heller (2007), point to how speakers of undeniably vital world languages such as French
or English (especially the Official English movement in America) utilise discourses of
endangerment to complain that their languages are under threat. They then use this
observation as a basis to challenge the whole notion of language endangerment. Such
criticism can be unhelpful to members of linguistic minorities, who already have to deal
with disparagement from those who would rather see them disappear. However, the
description of French and English as endangered can also be seen as a
(mis)appropriation of the increasingly popular discourse of language endangerment,
perhaps analogous to the appropriation of biodiversity rhetoric by language campaigners
(Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi and Harmon 2003).
A more justified criticism is that of essentialism, which is rarely defined but which
Schiffman (2002: 141) describes as a latter-day sin. The concept of language
endangerment is to a certain extent predicated on the belief that languages can be
delimited as discrete entities. As noted above, researchers influenced by postmodern
theories challenge the notion that language boundaries can be demarcated, seeing them as
constructs established for the convenience of linguists, missionaries and colonial powers.
Gal (2006) asserts that languages are a European invention, while Mhlhusler (1996)
claims that the identification of languages and the way they are named are far from being
an act of objective description and may constitute a serious violation of the linguistic
ecology of a given area.
Essentialism in language endangerment discourse is often equated with an assumption
of linguistic relativity or determinism. Many endangered language campaigners claim
that when a language dies out, a unique way of looking at the world also disappears, as in
the motto of the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project: because every last word
means another lost world. It is indeed the case that much writing on language
endangerment both implicitly and explicitly accepts the view that language, culture and
identity are inseparable: for example, Grimes (2001) claims that the disappearance of a
language means the extinction of a unique creation of human beings that houses a
treasure of information and preserves a peoples identity. Such views can be held without
apparently noticing the irony that language shift would not happen if speakers
attachment to their ancestral language were really the overriding factor in their identity
and the prime motivation in their linguistic behaviour. In addition, there is a tendency to
prioritise endangered languages spoken by indigenous groups in exotic (non-Western)
locations with colourful cultural or anthropological practices. This can make it relatively
difficult to get funding for research in, say, Europe, and can also mean that assumptions
of cultural difference can be accepted unwittingly.
In response to criticisms, some organisations have toned down or hedged their
essentialist rhetoric: for example, the Foundation for Endangered Languages website
states that Along with [the loss of language transmission] may go a large part of the
pride and identity of the community of former speakers;16 while the website of the
Linguistic Society of Americas Committee on Endangered Languages and their
Preservation (henceforth LSA) affirms that

language loss . . . is often felt as a loss of social identity or as a symbol of defeat.

That doesnt mean that a groups social identity is always lost when its language is
lost; for example, both the Chumash in California and the Manx on the Isle of Man
have lost their native languages, but not their identity as Chumash or Manx. But
language is a powerful symbol of a groups identity.17

It cannot be denied that many writers on language endangerment appeal to emotional

responses and moral justice. After all, a good deal of wrong has been done to linguistic,
ethnic and indigenous minorities. As Fishman (1991: 19) notes, those who wish to
reverse language shift should not be embarrassed about the fact that theirs is basically a
value position (a position relative to the ethnocultural saliency, content and regulation of
their lives), because the position of their opponents is also no more than a value
position.
Although the critical turn is currently the dominant paradigm in sociolinguistics and
linguistic anthropology, its discussion is largely confined to academic circles and has had
little impact on language revitalisation movements. Although Brumfit (2006) too claims
that while for linguists the term language may have outlived whatever usefulness it
ever had, he concedes that it retains its potency as a political construct. Thus, the
critical turn does not prevent people from:

identifying themselves with a particular set of (sometimes stereotyped) linguistic

practices;
perceiving a distinctive set of linguistic practices as iconic of a particular ethnic or
local identity;
perceiving the maintenance of distinctiveness in both as necessary;
developing emotional responses to particular linguistic practices and to perceived
language loss;
elevating some linguistic practices and negatively sanctioning others, defining
certain linguistic practices as a language and others as dialect, etc.;
associating such evaluations with social status, economic or cultural capital
(Bourdieu 1991), solidarity (Giles and Johnson 1987), etc.

As recognised by May (2004) and Patrick (2004), for many minority-language

speakers, language is still an important element of their self-identification, especially in
their search for linguistic human rights or cultural/political distinctiveness, even if, as
Heller (2004) notes, it can entail adopting the same hegemonic discourses as nation-
states which deny linguistic human rights.
It is also possible to perceive some contradictions in the arguments and positions of
postmodern-influenced writers. While linguistic determinism is criticised and would
seem at odds with the multidimensionality favoured by postmodernism, Woolard (1998)
emphasises that discourses and ideologies are closely linked, which could imply a
relativistic link between language and thought. Kroskrity (2000b: 2) likewise stresses the
need to recognize the sociocultural foundations of language and discourse.
Perhaps the most justified criticism of academic approaches to language endangerment
is that, as observed by Costa (2013) and Labov (2008), linguists may focus on the
intellectual aspects of language loss to the extent that they reify and prioritise language
and lose sight of the social inequalities underlying language shift (Sealey and Carter
2001, 2004), and omit to mention (and thus effectively erase) the people involved. The
positionality of field linguists has been much debated in recent years and will be
discussed in relation to this research in Chapter 3.
This book takes on board some of these constructive criticisms, while adopting a
positionality that is broadly supportive of efforts by members of speech communities to
maintain some form of linguistic and cultural distinctiveness.
Together with colleagues I propose that it is time to move on from both essentialism
and mud-slinging to examine the ideological bases of reactions to language
endangerment by those involved most closely, i.e. communities and linguists, as a basis
for informed, reflective action in both language documentation and language policies,
from family to international level (Austin and Sallabank forthcoming b).

1.4 Language endangerment and language policy

Although language policy is often related to inequalities and minority groups, there is
relatively little research into the overlap between language endangerment (including
revitalisation) and language planning and policy, and few publications specifically on
language policy with regard to small language communities.18 As noted by Spolsky
(2004: 43) and McCarty (2011), language policies are formulated and implemented at all
levels of society and in all domains of use, from intergovernmental level to families and
individuals. There is rarely explicit policy formulation at family level (Spolsky 2004:
43), yet this sphere is crucial for language vitality as traditionally measured.
In this book, the term policy-makers therefore refers not only to government officials
and language planners, but also to community members, activists and actors at all levels
(especially members of language revitalisation movements), as well as linguists or
researchers who may find themselves in the position of advising them. In the following
chapters, I examine processes and links, and possible tensions, between grass-roots and
government-sponsored policy-making. Given Romaines observation that [top-down]
policies have negligible impact on home use (2002b: 1), and that the weak linkages
between policy and planning . . . render ineffective most policies aimed at assisting
endangered languages (2002b: 3), it is relevant to look at the processes of policy
formation from the point of view of endangered language community members. Small-
scale, local, grass-roots actions in support of endangered languages may reflect what
Baldauf (19931994) calls unplanned language planning. They are less frequently
studied or reported in the academic literature than large-scale programmes or national
and international policies.
As I note in Sallabank (2011b), language policy and planning were originally
associated with language and literacy policy in post-colonial states, in particular the
choice and standardisation of a national language (e.g. Tauli 1968; Rubin and Jernudd
1971; Fishman 1974; Tollefson 1991; Williams 1992). The field developed after the
Second World War when many formerly colonised countries were becoming
independent. Language planning was therefore associated with post-colonial language
and literacy policy, especially the choice and standardisation of national languages.
Language planning viewed multilingualism, especially in minority languages and
dialects, as an economic burden and as associated with poverty (Ladefoged 1992; Grin
and Vaillancourt 1997; Harbert et al. 2009). Such policies have been increasingly
criticised for treating multilingualism as a problem: promoting national languages as
tools of nation-building and unification, while ignoring, and even discouraging, linguistic
diversity and minority languages (Ruz 1984). The assumption that speaking a minority
language entails poverty and powerlessness (Harbert et al. 2009) is increasingly being
challenged, and indigenous and heritage languages are being promoted both as a source
of ethnolinguistic pride and as a basis for cultural and economic revitalisation (Grin and
Vaillancourt 1999; Eggington 2001; Bastardas-Boada 2005; Batibo 2005; Walsh 2006,
2010; Schreyer 2011; Wilson 2011a; King forthcoming). For example, in the Isle of Man,
Mooinjer Veggey, an organisation which runs bilingual and Manx-medium pre-school
education, won a government contract in the mid-2000s to provide pre-schools in
disadvantaged areas.
Many authors treat language policy and planning almost synonymously, and there
is also considerable lack of clarity in the literature in distinguishing policy from planning
or practice. Yet given the weak linkages between policy declarations and
implementation observed by Romaine (2002), it seems imperative to study the
formulation of policy and how it might be put into effect. Studies frequently go into
considerable detail about particular practices when discussing policy (e.g. Edwards 1984;
Grin 1999; Hansen 2001; Ferrer 2004; Heinrich 2004; Coluzzi 2005; Hornberger 2006).
There is also a lack of well-defined models for analysing and comparing different policy
approaches, or ways to evaluate outcomes that can be applied across different settings
(Ricento 2006: 18). In this book I will use policy to indicate decisions, positions and
principles (often ideologically motivated) regarding language, its nature and role; these
may not necessarily be consciously formulated, but are nonetheless policy for that. I will
use planning to indicate actions or measures to implement policies, especially measures
to support languages (often at grass-roots level) or which are intended to influence
language practices. I suggest in Sallabank (2012a) that language planning can be defined
broadly as comprising any decisions or actions that affect language use, whether wide-
reaching or small in scope: e.g. punctuation, language shift or the choice of an
(inter)national language.
Language policies are likely to reflect prevailing language ideologies (see Chapter 3).
Because some aspects of language are commonly held to be iconic (emblematic) of some
aspects of identity, language policy and planning may arouse strong feelings. This book
discusses some problems in the formulation and effective implementation as well as
potential unintended outcomes of policies which may arise from ideologies and
perceptions: both those of linguists and those of community members.
Language planning falls into two main categories (Kloss and Verdoodt 1969; Cooper
1989; Kaplan and Baldauf 1997):

Actions to define or modify a language itself (also known as corpus planning):

e.g. defining a language, description and codification, choice of script,
orthography and standardisation of a language, as well as terminology
development.
Actions to modify attitudes towards a language, or its status in a language
ecology.

The distinction between corpus planning and status planning was originally suggested
by Kloss and Verdoodt (1969). The original definition of status planning has since been
divided into three separate areas (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 2003), although it is
acknowledged that in practice none of the categories can be implemented without overlap
(e.g. Spolsky 2004; Fishman 2006).
Language-in-education or acquisition planning is the largest arena for language policy
and planning for endangered languages; as noted above, many language planners, both at
community and governmental levels, focus on schools first and foremost. It can include
medium of education, immersion, which languages are taught as school subjects, teacher
training, etc. But language acquisition planning can also be carried out in less formal and
more community-based ways, e.g. the master (or mentor)apprentice programmes
described by Hinton (1997) and Hinton, Vera and Steele (2002). Language acquisition
planning may be seen as involving both corpus planning and status planning, which
encompasses attempts to expand the domains in which a language is used, to secure
official recognition, etc.
The last but not least element of language planning is prestige planning. This term
was introduced by Haarmann (1984, 1990) to differentiate activities aimed at promoting
a positive view of a language from those concerned with political status or functions: not
only the content of planning activities is important but also the acceptance or rejection of
planning efforts (Haarmann 1990: 105). This stage is frequently omitted but is essential
for success: all too often measures omit to foster positive attitudes towards
multilingualism, linguistic diversity or a particular language (Fennell 1981; Dauenhauer
and Dauenhauer 1998). For example, Grenoble and Whaley (2006) argue that Soviet
language policy, while ostensibly supporting minority languages, led to Siberian peoples
becoming passive recipients of language planning rather than active participants, and
thus to lack of enthusiasm for revitalisation projects.
In internal language planning documents in the Isle of Man, Language Officer Adrian
Cain (personal communication, 15 November 2012) uses the Acquisition Status
Corpus framework, but adds a further dimension: planning for language use, which
includes developing the use of Manx in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Along
with other local initiatives, this will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Since the 1990s there has been a growth in interest in language policies which view
linguistic diversity as a good thing and which try to support minority and endangered
languages. Nekvapil (2006), Spolsky (2009a) and some others prefer to use the term
language management rather than language planning in order to demonstrate that these
more enlightened policies are different from old-style promotion of a monolingual
ideology. According to Nekvapil and Nekula (2006), Neustupn and Nekvapil (2003)
and Spolsky (2009a), Language Management Theory (LMT) represents an alternative to
language planning theories. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) define language management as
metalinguistic activities (behaviour-toward-language (Neustupn and Nekvapil 2003))
that take place in actual everyday discourse (simple management), e.g. a self-correction
of a word form, or in organisations which aim to influence actual everyday discourse
(organised management), e.g. a language reform initiated by a government agency.
Simple management has an ad hoc character, while organised management is more
directed and systematic. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) and Neustupn and Nekvapil
(2003) claim that LMT is well suited to the analysis of language planning at macro and
micro level. The ideal model of language planning activity is seen as a process, which
Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) describe as follows: the identification of a language problem
in individual interactions the adoption of measures by the particular language planning
institution the implementation of these measures in individual interactions. This might
look like a top-down model, but as Nekvapil and Nekula (2006: 311) emphasise:

Language management takes place within social networks of various scopes. It does
not occur only in various state organisations, with a scope of activities comprising
the whole society these were the major focus of the classical theory of language
planning but also in individual companies, schools, media, associations, families
as well as individual speakers in particular interactions. The theory of language
management therefore deals not only with the macro-social dimension, but also with
the micro-social one.
 However, in this book I continue to use the term language planning because it is still
in common use and language management is not, as yet, so well recognised.
According to Spolsky (2004; 2009b), language policy has three components: language
practices, language beliefs and language management (see Figure 1.1). Language
management is one component of language policy, reflecting my distinction between
decisions and implementation.

Figure 1.1 Components of language policy (adapted from Spolsky 2009b; reproduced
with permission from Bernard Spolsky)

In Spolskys model of language policy in Figure 1.1, language practices are what
people do with language, including which languages are used, permitted or prohibited in
public (or even in private). Language beliefs are attitudes towards language or language
varieties, and which language(s) people think should be used, how they should be used
and in what circumstances; this includes perceived distinctions between language and
dialect, which is very much part of language policy. As will be discussed in Chapters 3
and 5, beliefs and attitudes are key elements in the successful implementation of
language policy; managing (or attempting to influence) beliefs thus becomes a vital
aspect. I have therefore added an extra step to Spolskys model: language management
feeds back into language beliefs. At this point a drawback becomes apparent in this
model, in that it is static; there is no indication how to move language policy forward.
The relationship between beliefs and practices (or behaviour) will be discussed in
Chapter 3. The next chapter, however, focuses more specifically on the background to
the case studies in this book.
 2 Small islands on the periphery of Britain

2.1 Socioeconomic, political and cultural background

In this chapter I discuss extra-linguistic factors in the sociolinguistic development of
Manx, Jrriais and Guernesiais. Although it might have seemed more straightforward to
describe each case study in turn, one of the underpinnings of this book is a comparative
approach; factors will therefore be examined thematically, comparing and contrasting
impacts and responses in each island.
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are small islands of roughly similar sizes and
populations, located on the peripheries of the British Isles (see the map in Figure 2.1). As
mentioned in Chapter 1, all three have similar sociolinguistic and political status: they are
semi-autonomous polities with endangered languages and comparable yet contrasting
language policies. They are not part of the United Kingdom (UK) but are self-governing
dependencies of the British Crown. They have their own directly elected legislative
assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and their own courts of law. In theory
they have considerable internal autonomy in terms of domestic policy (e.g. education),
although the UK government is responsible, following consultation, for international
relations and defence.
Figure 2.1 Map showing the locations of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man

At the same time, the islands and their populations have significant links to the UK: in
each island at least half of the population is of British origin, and for historical reasons
the British monarch serves as Head of State,1 although each island has an elected Chief
Minister and cabinet as well as Crown-appointed officials; the monarch is represented by
a Lieutenant-Governor. In many cases, the island governments simply copy legislation
passed by the UK government (sometimes modified to fit local circumstances). This is
sometimes justified by size, on the grounds that each island does not have the capacity to
develop its own stand-alone policies. However, ideological, cultural and economic links
to the UK also play a role in such decisions, for example, in relation to school curricula
(see below). Some informants have voiced concern that the traditional legal systems
(Norman customary law in the Channel Islands, Gaelic and Norse customary law in the
Isle of Man) are being altered by increased influence from the UK, as the islands
jealously guard their traditional rights.
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are also not members of the European Union
(EU),2 which has some implications for language policy and funding for minority
language development. Lsch (2000) sees attitudes towards the EU in the Channel
Islands as varying from enthusiastic vis--vis strengthening ties with Normandy (which
maintains a cultural centre in Jersey3), to negative, an expression of the historical
mistrust of France (Lsch 2000: 101). In all three islands, political and legal
independence from the UK and EU is highly valued and strongly defended.
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man each have their own [separate] parliaments with
law-making authority in their respective jurisdictions, and do not send representatives to
the British Parliament in Westminster (Ministry of Justice 2006).
The Isle of Man parliament, Tynwald, is divided into two branches: the House of Keys
(lower house, with twenty-four elected members or MHKs) and the Legislative Council,
whose eleven members are either indirectly elected or sit ex officio. Tynwald is claimed
to be of Norse origin and over 1,000 years old, and is thus the oldest parliament in the
world with an unbroken existence.4 On Tynwald Day, 5th June of each year, the
members of Tynwald process to Tynwald Hill, an artificial hill in St Johns in the centre
of the island which is one of the ancient open-air sites where the assemblies are reputed
to have met. Legislation which has been enacted during the past year is summarised in
Manx and English. Petitions for redress of grievance can also be presented by members
of the public. The ceremony is followed by a fair and traditional-style music and dancing.
This use of Manx in ceremonial legislature is unique in all three islands in this case
study. It is a significant driver of the development of new terminology in Manx by
Coonceil ny Gaelgey, the Manx Gaelic Advisory Council, a sub-committee of the Manx
Heritage Foundation which is responsible for the provision of authoritative Manx
versions of the titles of government departments, street names and the creation of new
words and phrases.5 Beyond ceremonial occasions such as Tynwald Day and an option
to take the new members Oath of Allegiance in Manx, and some place names, the Manx
language is not used in the parliament itself, and there is no provision for translation of
proceedings into and out of Manx. However, the Tynwald Companion, an official
publication intended to explain the workings of Tynwald,6 provides a list of terms and
expressions in Manx (with a pronunciation guide), which range from specific terms such
as

Ard-shirveishagh urd shirvayshach Chief Minister

Ta mee shirrey kied ny Tah me shirra kid na I beg leave to ask the
feyshtyn y chur ta fo my fairshtun a hur tah fo Questions standing in
ennym mennum my name

to place names and conversational Manx words and phrases such as

gow my leshtal gow ma lesh chal excuse me.

The Channel Islands are situated in the Gulf of St Malo off Normandy in northern
France (see Figure 2.2). The Channel Islands do not together form a political unit, but are
divided into two Bailiwicks (i.e. a territory headed by a Bailiff; see below). The
Bailiwick of Jersey consists of the island of Jersey plus outlying islets and reefs, while
the Bailiwick of Guernsey includes (in order of size) Guernsey, Alderney, Sark,
Brecqhou, Herm, Jethou, and various small islets.
Figure 2.2 Map of the Channel Islands

The parliaments of Jersey and Guernsey are known as the States. Following reforms in
2004 in Guernsey and 2005 in Jersey, both Bailiwicks now have ministerial systems of
government presided over by a Chief Minister. The role of the Bailiff, which combines
the functions of president of both the legislative assembly and the judiciary, has changed
progressively to focus on judiciary functions, so that the parliamentary role has become
more ceremonial. Alderney and Sark have their own parliaments, though Alderney also
sends two representatives to the States of Guernsey.
The States of Jersey has fifty-one elected members: ten Senators (who are elected
island-wide), twelve Conntables (heads of parishes or administrative areas) and twenty-
nine Deputies, who each represent a parish or, in the case of larger parishes, an electoral
district within a parish; plus five unelected members who are non-voting executive
officials, including the Bailiff and the Lieutenant-Governor.7 At the time of writing
further options for constitutional reform were being debated which would reduce the
number of members of the States and alter voting districts.
 The Guernsey legislature or States of Deliberation consists of forty-five Peoples
Deputies, elected every four years to represent multi- or single-member districts. Two
Crown-appointed officers also sit as non-voting members. Since the 2004 reforms parish
representatives (called Douzeniers in Guernsey) no longer sit in the States.
As some constitutional reform is instigated by the UK Government or European Court
of Human Rights, throughout the islands recorded histories it has prompted debate about
identity, rights and privilege, with modernisation, such as the introduction of an
executive, seen by some as entailing a whittling away of Norman customary law, an
important part of island identity, while others see the Guernsey consensus system of
government as slow and unwieldy. There is also periodic debate about seeking increased
independence, most recently in 2009 in Guernsey, but the prevailing view was that
relinquishing the status of Crown Dependency would make the islands less attractive to
financial institutions and therefore have adverse economic consequences.8
In the Channel Islands, the local languages have no official role or status, but French
has traditionally acted as the language of state (see 6.3); it was the working language of
both Bailiwicks States assemblies until the 1920s in Guernsey and the 1930s in Jersey.
Prayers are said in French at the start of a sitting. In Guernsey members of the States vote
verbally in French (vive voix) on legislation, calling out pour (for), contre (against), or Je
ne vote pas (I am not voting) to abstain. Any member can request an appel nominal
(recorded vote), in which members are asked individually for their vote. In Jersey voting
is now carried out either by standing up (members stand to signify their support or
opposition to a proposition), or by an electronic voting system which has taken the place
of the appel nominal. Members press a button to indicate p (for pour), c (for contre)
or a (abstain).9 The Isle of Man also uses electronic voting, and in recent years several
calls have been made for it to be introduced in Guernsey.10 In all three islands
parliaments, the official transcriptions of proceedings are now in English.
In Guernsey the first attempt to allow the use of English in the States was made in
1853, but was rejected by the jurats or senior judges.11 In nineteenth-century Guernsey
this public office was reserved for men who spoke French, but the English-speaking
population was growing, especially in the island capital, St Peter Port, where
Anglophones were rapidly becoming the majority. In 1898 the States resolved that
English should be permitted in debates. The introduction of English was associated with
modernisation and democratisation (Crossan 2007): it coincided with the principle of
direct representation of the electorate, which was incorporated into the electoral system
in 1899 (Marr 2001: 160). The local vernacular, Guernesiais, was never even considered.
One native speaker of Guernesiais who had been a member of the States recounted an
incident that took place in the 1990s:

Aen cao dans ls tats je di qu si chtait en guernesiais je pourrais m

mexpressa bian mu [laughter] i riyi
 (Once in the States I said that if it were in Guernsey French I would be able to
express myself much better they laughed.) (GF13)12

Although presented jokingly, this vignette illustrates the disdain with which
Guernesiais has been regarded: it has never been taken seriously enough to be seen as a
language of public life.
It can therefore be concluded that the existence of independent legislatures in these
three jurisdictions has not necessarily advanced the use and status of local languages.
Official language policies will be discussed further in 6.3.
Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are all members of the British-Irish Council
(BIC), which has identified protection and promotion of indigenous minority languages
as a priority (see Chapter 6). The BIC was set up as part of the Northern Ireland Peace
Process in 1998 to promote positive, practical relationships among its Members, which
are the British and Irish Governments, the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man (British-Irish Council
2004). Members of the legislatures and senior civil servants meet regularly to share
examples of good practice and promote good governance; different members take the
lead on particular areas of interest such as tourism or language.
Although the islands control their own education policies, there is hardly any higher
education on any of the islands, so students tend to attend universities in the UK.
Qualifications therefore need to be recognised by UK institutions, which leads to school
curricula closely mirroring the UK (especially England). It could nevertheless be pointed
out that (1) it would be equally valid to follow a Welsh-style curriculum with bilingual or
local-language-medium teaching; and (2) many non-British students attend UK
universities, which have well-established systems for comparing qualifications.
Many young people find the islands insular and express a desire to leave as soon as
they are old enough. Property prices are very high, which adds to this exodus. Emigration
for education can lead to longer-term emigration, so replacement expertise may be
imported from the UK, especially in key sectors of the economy such as finance, and in
public services such as the civil service, education and healthcare, which in turn leads to
further Anglicisation of policies. The public sectors in these three small island
jurisdictions (Wilson, Johnson and Sallabank forthcoming) or micro-polities (O
hIfearnin 2010) are proportionately larger than they would be in an equivalent-sized
community in a larger national framework, due to the need to deal with the machinery of
government at national and international as well as local level.
Owing to the Celtic connection, there is a tradition of the Manx language movement
comparing itself with its Celtic neighbours rather than with similar-sized polities with a
similar constitutional position such as the Channel Islands. However, more recently
contacts have been developed with a wider range of communities and activists: Rob
Amery, a linguist active in indigenous language revival in Australia, was invited to give
the annual Ned Maddrell lecture in 2010 (named after a prominent last speaker of
Manx), and Chris Moseley from the Foundation for Endangered Languages/UNESCO
was invited in 2011. In 2012 these two strands were brought together, when Emily
McEwen-Fujita from Saint Marys University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, was invited
to talk about the revitalisation of the Gaelic language formerly spoken by descendants of
Scottish migrants to Nova Scotia.
According to official statistics, the Isle of Man has approximately 85,000 inhabitants
(Isle of Man Government 2012), Jersey c. 98,000 (States of Jersey Statistics Unit 2012),
and Guernsey c. 63,000 (States of Guernsey Policy Council 2012). Of the three islands,
Guernsey is the most densely populated and the Isle of Man the least.
A document prepared by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee on the draft
200510 Jersey Cultural Strategy describes Jersey as follows:

Topographically, Jersey is a cheese-shaped wedge, with cliffs and rugged coastline

in the north sloping and slipping down to the south-east where there is a massive 2-
mile inter-tidal zone of crystal clear waters . . .13

Guernsey has a similar landscape, but oriented in the opposite direction, with cliffs in
the south sloping down to sand dunes in the north. Both islands contain numerous varied
and attractive beaches, with clear (but cold) waters.
The Isle of Man contains surprisingly varied scenery in a small area. It is largely
mountainous with the highest peak, Snaefell, reaching 620 metres (2,034 ft) above sea
level. The northernmost part of the island consists of a plain. In the nineteenth to
twentieth centuries, all three islands developed their tourist industries, which may have
contributed to language shift: advertisements for Guernsey in the mid twentieth century
declared that there was no language problem. In the late twentieth century, however,
British holidaymakers began to prefer warmer and cheaper locations, which the islands
could not compete with as mass-market holiday destinations. Tourism remains the
second most important industry, though it now focuses on heritage rather than seaside
holidays: indigenous languages are thus now seen as attracting rather than putting off
tourists.
The Channel Islands and Isle of Man have been inhabited since prehistoric times and
contain several important archaeological sites (Sebire 2005; Davey forthcoming). All
three were substantially influenced by Viking (Norse) raids and empire-building from the
ninth to eleventh centuries. In 911 the Duchy of Normandy was created from land ceded
to the Viking chief Rollo; the Channel Islands were incorporated into it in 933
(Lemprire 1980, Johnstone 1994). Duke William of Normandy then conquered England
in 1066. The French monarch Philip II invaded Normandy in 1204 and seized the
mainland but not the Channel Islands. The islanders swore allegiance to the British
Crown in return for protection and privileges (the origin of their current political and tax
status). This is the date from which Guernsey and Jersey count their history as
independent polities (Johnstone 1994: 35). Many people in the Channel Islands (only
partly in jest) consider Britain to be their oldest posssession, since (as part of
Normandy) they won the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
The Channel Islands formed a valuable staging point and strategic outpost between
London and the French possessions of the English Crown. This strategic border position
may have encouraged islanders to distance themselves from a French identity (Lsch
2000). As early as 1206, King John ordered the construction of Castle Cornet to
safeguard the harbour in St Peter Port (the Guernsey capital and the main harbour in the
Channel Islands) from attacks by enemies in France. Thus, from the very beginning of
their history as independent polities, the Channel Islands were seen as bastions of the
English Crown against the French. Throughout the mediaeval period, the rivalry between
the monarchs of England and France continued, culminating in the Hundred Years War
from 1337 to 1443 (Lemprire 1980: 31). Nevertheless, much trade continued with
Normandy, which reinforced the use of Norman languages. It must also be remembered
that at this time Anglo-Norman was still the language of the upper classes and legal
system in England (Paradis 2005).
During the English Civil War (162549), Guernsey took the side of the
Parliamentarians, due to the strength of religious nonconformism in the island, while
Jersey took the Royalist side. Cromwell planned to incorporate the islands into
Hampshire, like the Isle of Wight (Johnstone 1994: 45), but this was not carried out after
it was recognised that the Channel Islands were not governed by English law. As a result
of its support for the Parliamentarian cause, Guernsey almost lost its rights and privileges
on the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, which was only avoided through exceptional
grovelling; Johnstone (1994: 59) considers this the closest Guernsey has ever come to
losing her self-government.
The Channel Islands neutrality, which had led to prosperity through trade with
France, was revoked by William of Orange in 1689. The islands once again assumed
strategic importance as exposed outposts of the English Crown. Until the beginning of
the nineteenth century, Channel Island-based privateers preyed on enemy ships, through
which enterprising island families gained wealth and status.
In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Channel Islands were in the front
line of hostilities in the Napoleonic wars, which brought an influx of British troops and
cut the Channel Islands off from France. Largely because of this threat, new roads and
fortified towers were built. These improvements facilitated intra-island movement and
therefore linguistic contact and change; previously it had taken nearly two days to cross
from the westernmost point of Guernsey to the capital, St Peter Port (Johnstone 1994:
65).
Channel Islanders do not consider themselves colonised, despite the heavy British
military presence in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In effect cultural
colonisation did occur in the nineteenth century due to increased immigration and
tourism (Inglis 1835; Anon. 1845; Crossan 2007).
The Isle of Man is in the Irish Sea, approximately equidistant from England, Ireland
and Scotland. It is approximately 30 miles/50 kilometres long, and 15 miles/25
kilometres wide at its broadest point. Like the Channel Islands it was taken over by the
Vikings in the eighth to ninth centuries. It was the seat of the Kingdom of Mann and the
Isles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries before coming under Scottish rule in 1266.
During the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, England and Scotland fought for possession
of the Isle of Man, with control passing between the two until 1346, when England won a
decisive victory at the Battle of Nevilles Cross in Durham, North-East England. The
Crown delegated control to a succession of feudal lords, with the Stanley family in
charge from 1405 to 1830 (Stowell 2005, Ager 2009; New History of the Isle of Man14).
In 1765 the Revestment Act was passed, whereby the island was sold to the British
Crown. This was followed by harsh economic conditions which led many islanders to
emigrate, while at the same time immigration from England and Scotland increased. A
similar pattern of emigration and immigration was also seen in the Channel Islands in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Crossan 2007).
From the sixteenth century on, knitting became an important industry in the Channel
Islands, and the name Jersey is now synonymous with woollen pullover in English; the
word gansey is used for jumper in Manx and other Celtic languages (and some dialects
of English). In all three islands smuggling, or running as it was known in the Isle of
Man, has also been a source of income for some sectors of the population at various
points in history.
As in most of Europe, the nineteenth century saw industrialisation, particularly in the
Isle of Man due to its deposits of lead, silver and zinc. Some iconic industrial architecture
such as the Big Wheel at Laxey and the steam and electric railways, which are now
tourist attractions, date from this era. In the Channel Islands the major heavy industry
was granite quarrying, apart from some attempts to mine other metals such as tin in Sark
(for which miners were brought from Cornwall) and a short-lived silver mine in
Guernsey. Other industries which were of importance in the nineteenth century, but have
since declined, include shipbuilding in all three islands (until the replacement of wooden
sailing ships with metal ones), cider-making in the Channel Islands, and in the Isle of
Man handloom weaving. Until the second half of the twentieth century, the mainstays of
all three islands economies were agriculture and horticulture, together with fishing
(mainly for home consumption). The Guernsey and Jersey breeds of dairy cattle are
known worldwide, as is the Jersey Royal potato. Horticulture (tomatoes and early
flowers) was a major industry in the Channel Islands in the twentieth century, but has
also declined with increased fuel costs and competition from further afield. In most of
these industries, the main target for exports was the UK, although the dairy industry has
links with North America due to the export of cattle. An interviewee from the Guernsey
Dairy noted that, like the local language, traditional aspects of island economies are
declining:

The dairy industry has been around for an awful long time in Guernsey its one of
the last remaining bastions of island life after the demise of the tomato industry, and
the fishing industry is probably not too clever at the minute and is dying a slow
death, and really farming and agriculture is probably one of the more traditional
ways of earning a living on the island and of course the farmers are custodians of
the countryside. (GE18)

This interview excerpt draws on the metaphor of language and ecology, but in the
context of the use of local languages in branding local products: perhaps ironically, the
island vernacular, which for hundreds of years was not seen as conferring any economic
advantage, is now seen as bestowing prestige on high-end products (see Chapter 6).
From 1940 to 1945 the Channel Islands were occupied by the Germans. Nearly half of
the population of Guernsey was evacuated to the UK beforehand (just after Dunkirk),
including most of the children; approximately a third of the Jersey population was
evacuated. The evacuation of civilians from Guernsey was felt to be necessary, partly
due to fear of German atrocities, and partly because it was realised that the islands were
dependent on imports for food, which indeed became scarce later in the war (Uttley
1966: 210; Bunting 1995), while Jersey is larger with more agricultural land. The
evacuation and subsequent repatriation are commonly viewed as a major factor in the
decline of Guernesiais, effectively stopping intergenerational transmission.

I can think of several people who went away during the war who understand every
word of it but have never spoken it, even when they came back and their parents
did, but they didnt, and so you know I think that was what well I mean its not dead
by any means but that was a major factor in its decrease. (GF39)

However, the extent of the evacuations influence on language use and attitudes is
open to question: a much smaller proportion of the Jersey population was evacuated
(Bunting 1995); yet Jrriais is now also highly endangered, and language shift is a
common phenomenon worldwide. One informant placed the start of shift earlier, at the
First World War, as men went away and did not speak the language for years. The First
World War was similarly identified as a factor in Breton language shift by Kuter (1989:
80).
During the German occupation, Guernesiais and Jrriais were used more among the
islanders who stayed, as a language of solidarity and secrecy.15 Returning evacuees who
wanted to speak Guernesiais and Jrriais did not always find it easy. Some non-evacuees
objected to returnees Anglicised twang. Numerous informants have recounted how
mistakes were not tolerated among children deemed to be native speakers, so confidence
and motivation to speak the local languages were undermined.
Returning evacuees also brought back disparaging attitudes towards insularity and
traditional language practices, which became so prevalent that in the post-war period the
prestige of the island languages was at its lowest ebb. This interviewee indicates the
effect on family language use of societal attitudes:

After the war we were thought to be country bumpkins so my parents would not
let me speak it. (QGE3)

The Channel Islands benefited from UK economic aid, which, however, led to reliance
on British expertise. Tourism increased, bringing yet more English speakers, and the
advent of mass media brought English into the home, and influenced aspirations and
lifestyle. As noted by Wilson et al. (forthcoming), all three islands have undergone
considerable economic change over the last four decades, transitioning from economies
centred on traditional industries and tourism to post-industrial economies based on
banking and financial services.16 For example, by 2005 the finance sector accounted for
half of Jerseys output, and tourism accounted for one-quarter of GDP.17 The main
trading partner is the UK: culturally and economically the islands are overwhelmingly
oriented towards the UK.
During the First and Second world wars, non-British nationals were interned in the
Isle of Man, plus prisoners of war during the Second World War. In the occupied
Channel Islands, Alderney became a prison camp for workers brought in by the Germans
to build fortifications (mainly from Eastern Europe).
The last two to three centuries have seen all three islands move from being largely
self-sufficient economically to reliant on imports for all raw materials and fuel, as well as
for a large proportion of foodstuffs (although agriculture remains important in Jersey).
The islands economies are now largely based on service industries. While this transition
has had both positive and negative impacts on the islands and their inhabitants, Wilson et
al. (forthcoming) argue that it has provided higher and more stable rates of economic
growth, which, in turn, have translated into increased revenues for the governments and a
relatively high standard of living for most islanders. Walker (1993) and Wilson (2008,
2011a) claim that economic security enables language movements to grow.

2.1.1 Islandness
Although many of the factors and features of language shift, reclamation, practices and
policies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not unique to small islands and
their populations, it can be argued that insularity (in its broadest and narrowest senses)
has played an important role in the development of these three jurisdictions. The growing
field of Island Studies asserts that islandness intensifies notions of distinctiveness,
isolation, boundedness and self-reliance. Taglioni (2011) cites Bonnemaisons (1990:
119) statement that islandness is an integral aspect of the field of representation and
metaphor; it relates not to facts but to vision: in this view islandness corresponds to
the vision islanders have of their island, whereby they locate it in the centre of the world
and in the centre of their world (Taglioni 2011: 47). Baldacchino (2008: 29) describes as
a fallacy the common notion attributed to islands . . . that they are convenient
microcosms, scaled down versions of what takes place elsewhere, yet recognises that
After all, islandness and its associated characteristics (such as boundedness by water,
remoteness, proneness to exogenous shocks, and relative resource scarcity) are
themselves variables that could intervene and cut across many natural and human
processes.
There is a certain tendency towards romanticised and essentialised notions in the field
of Island Studies, and I remain to be convinced that islandness as a factor has been
defined in a rigorous way, since other small communities face similar pressures and react
in similar ways. McCall (1994: 106) proposes study of islands on their own terms,
moving on to argue that islands can learn from each other. Like Baldacchino, he rejects
the notion that islands should simply be taken as smaller and more limited versions of
continents, yet is not convinced that there is a direct relationship between the
geography of a place and the personality of the inhabitants (ibid.). Taglioni (2011: 54)
recognises that

insularity does not systematically generate a specific type of problem. By observing

this we do not deny the fact that the islands are more or less enclosed or that they
possess physical particularities as a result of their size and isolation. However, these
characteristics are never absolute, nor do they give rise to development issues that
could be seen to inevitably place islands in a position of isolation or marginality in
relation to the world system.

It could be argued that the boundedness inherent in living on an island might help to
define/construct (socio)linguistic boundaries. However, it is unclear whether this has
actually contributed to the designation of Manx, Guernesiais and Jrriais as distinct
languages rather than stages on dialect continua (see 2.2). With regard to the Isle of Man,
it can be argued that political autonomy has played a greater role in distinguishing Manx
from Irish or Scottish Gaelic, while in Jersey and Guernsey there is still some debate
about whether the local varieties are languages or dialects.
Small island communities are not imagined communities in the same way as large
nation-states (Anderson 1991): their reality is readily grasped due to their size, and the
highly tangible boundary (coast) is small enough to be walked around in a day or two.
The population is small enough for a high proportion to be personally known and related
to each other; the endangered language speaker community is even smaller, with even
denser social networks (cf. Sallabank 2010a). It could therefore be argued that for a small
island, a national language is not so necessary in order to create the idea of a
community as in a large nation-state. However, this description is also true of non-island
micro-states such as Andorra or Monaco.
Taglioni (2011) points out that a small size and population are no longer seen as
automatically precluding political self-determination and economic sustainability, so that
an increasing number of micro-states and micro-territories are recognised by the United
Nations. But this very smallness may also affect the economic and political development
of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in terms of their client relationships with the
UK and with international finance and the necessity of engaging with globalisation. This
in turn cannot fail to influence culture and language. Wolfram (2008: 12) observes that

The sociolinguistic literature is replete with descriptions of distinct island language

varieties (e.g. Labov, 1963; Bakker and Mous, 1994; Schreier, 2003; Schneider et
al., 2004; Long, 2007) that index the socio-cultural and socio-historical uniqueness
of island communities. At the same time, the notion of a static, traditional island
language variety is inconsistent with the dynamics of ongoing language change
affecting island language varieties as well as other language varieties. Indeed, the
twenty-first century perspective on islands instantly accessible electronically and
often more physically accessible than many mainland sites should challenge the
nostalgic notion that their language exists in marginalised, romantic isolation. In
fact, the rapid transition of post-insular language varieties represents one of the most
critical dimensions of current sociolinguistic description and explanation. What
happens when the socio-historical isolation that fostered linguistic divergence is
transformed by economic, political, and social factors that make the language a
minority variety in its home site? Do island communities reconfigure their varieties
to maintain distinctiveness as their traditional varieties are inundated by speakers
from the outside? And what sociolinguistic responses might be adopted by islanders
who suffer the loss of an emblematic language variety?

This book addresses such issues. What happens when traditional (views of) languages
encounter (post)modernity, and the language shift, adaptation and change which ensue,
are issues which arouse considerable debate in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man,
especially when confronted by purist language ideologies. This will be discussed in
Chapter 5.

2.2 Island languages

English is now the dominant language in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but all
have indigenous language varieties. Each inhabited Channel Island has, or had, its own
Norman language, although only those of Jersey (Jrriais), Guernsey (Guernesiais), and
Sark (Serquiais) are still spoken. As in Sallabank (2011a), for ease of reference I use the
terms Jrriais, Guernesiais and Serquiais as if each constituted a single homogenous unit,
but as with all languages, there is considerable dialectal variation within each. The
degree of mutual intelligibility between Guernesiais, Jrriais and Serquiais is uncertain
and seems to depend on context. It is not too hard for a linguist to become aware of
regular contrasts, similarities and correspondences, and some traditional speakers of
Jrriais and Guernesiais, especially those who belong to associations with regular links,
claim to be able to understand each other with relatively few problems. Although Sark is
part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Serquiais was originally an offshoot of a north-
western dialect of Jrriais, as Sark was resettled from this region in the sixteenth century
after having been depopulated, but it has developed distinct features of its own, while
retaining some earlier ones. There has also been contact with Guernesiais. From
observation it seems that speakers of Guernesiais find it easier to understand Jrriais than
vice versa, while speakers of Serquiais expressed surprise that Marquis and I (as
Guernesiais speakers) could understand them. Variation within each language will be
discussed in Chapter 4.
In the Channel Islands the status of the indigenous vernaculars is reflected by the fact
that they do not even have an official name. The indigenous Guernsey language is known
as Guernsey French, Guernesiais (also spelt Dgernesiais or djernezi), frnais, or the
patois. In French patois means incorrect, deficient dialect, while in English it is
associated with creole. Thus, commonly expressed attitudes towards Guernesiais and
Jrriais are that they are not a proper language but either a substandard dialect of
French or a mixture of English and French. Spence (1993: 4) describes the effects of such
attitudes in Jersey as follows:

The fact that many of those who habitually spoke Jrriais themselves regarded it as
a patois is certainly a significant factor in its decline, in so far as it made them less
committed to the survival of the vernacular, and influenced the attitude of their
children.

However, in both Jersey and Guernsey the term patois is still used by both speakers
and non-speakers simply as a name for the local languages, without necessarily any sense
of it being derogatory.
These comments by an interviewee in Jersey illustrate the confusion that such loaded
terms can cause:

I mean its referred to quite correctly as a patois . . . I like to think of it as a

language rather . . . I mean it is a patois, because a patois implies its almost like a
lingua franca, a bit like cockney rhyming slang . . . its not, its a proper language
with proper grammatical constructions . . . proper words, which are distinct and not
just simply lifted from elsewhere, and its more than a lingua franca, to my mind its
a language and it should be treated as a language and to refer to it as a patois even if
thats the correct expression almost diminishes it a little as it implies its a bit like
 Romany, spoken round the back of things. (JE09)

In recent years the names Jrriais and Guernesiais have grown in use due to the
efforts of language campaigners and a degree of official support. In my first survey in
Guernsey the majority of native-speaker respondents stated that Guernesiais was the
name they preferred. In an announcement of a new language policy for Guernsey in
February 2013 (see 6.3.4), the presenter, Deputy Darren Duquemin, used the term the
Guernsey Language. The name Guernesiais /rnzje/ is hard for Anglophones to
pronounce, partly due to spelling pronunciation, especially when it is written with an
acute accent on the second e, as in the Dictiounnaire Angllais-Guernsiais (De Garis
1967/1982/2012), which is often mistakenly interpreted as a stress marker (the stress
should be on the first syllable). Calling it the Guernsey Language is a way of not
having to try to pronounce the name Guernesiais, while at the same time underlining its
status as the island language, and also avoiding terms such as Guernsey French (which
can imply a subaltern position to French, or a locally accented French), as well as patois.
Many people in the Channel Islands still call French the good French even people
involved in teaching and promoting the island languages which may reveal deep-seated
deficit ideologies about language status, as will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Duquemin also recognised that this can be seen as an obstacle to promoting Guernseys
own language.
Whether the former vernaculars are viewed as languages or dialects is of key
importance to language campaigners. As noted in Chapter 1, sociolinguists and linguistic
anthropologists increasingly see distinctions between languages as a hegemonic construct
rather than as having objective existence. However, Calvet (2006: 67) recognises that

languages are not merely an invention of linguists, they also exist in the minds of
speakers who say that they are talking one language or another . . . Languages
exist because and since speakers believe in them, because they have ideas about
them and images of them.

Distinguishing oneself by linguistic differentiation continues to be important for

identity construction: this aspect of language revitalisation will be examined in more
detail in Chapter 5. As noted in the previous section, it is possible that the fact of being
on an island can help to construct and reinforce language boundaries, as well as acting as
a unifying (socio)linguistic force within each island. Wilson (2011b: 12) comments:

Separation from the mainland has allowed many islands to develop unique cultures
and languages, but as the Isle of Man case will demonstrate, being an island does
not insulate a place and its culture from outside influences.

Guernesiais and Jrriais (along with the other former Channel Island (CI) vernaculars)
are branches of Norman, part of the Ol language family of northern France. Although
Jones (2001, 2007) refers to them as dialects, it has become a tenet of many language
supporters in Guernsey and Jersey that their varieties should be construed not as dialects
of French (as Ol varieties are often characterised) but as languages in their own right.
Reclaiming prestige is an important principle: e.g. Price (1984: 208) asserts that These
are . . . varieties of Norman French and the idea that they are a corruption of standard
French is devoid of all foundation. Milroy and Milroy (1999) note that attitudes towards
language expressed by many ordinary people are prescriptive, which leads to antipathy
towards non-standard varieties. Although notions of superiority or inferiority, beauty or
ugliness, and logicality or illogicality are irrational at the level of language system, they
may well be relevant at the level of beliefs and may thus affect usage.
To avoid the controversy of describing langues dOl (the varieties of northern France)
as dialects of French, the term collateral language has been coined to describe languages
which have developed differently from a common origin (Eloy 2004; Eloy and
hIfearnin 2007). Judge (2008) suggests that using this terminology, Scots may be
described as a collateral language of English, and vice versa. hIfearnin (2004) uses
this term to describe Manx in relation to Irish and Scottish Gaelic.
The German linguist Heinz Kloss (1967) provided a framework which incorporates
both political and linguistic factors in his theory of Ausbau and Abstand, elaborated over
several works (Kloss 1952, 1967, 1978, 1993) and further explored by Klosss follower
Muljai (1986, 1989) and other linguists (Goebl 1989; Irvine 1989; Trudgill 1992). To
summarise briefly, some languages, for example Basque or Hungarian, are clearly
differentiated from other languages or from their neighbours; they are Abstandsprachen
(languages by differentiation). Others, such as Danish or Urdu, have established their
identity by emphasising features which distinguish them from related languages; these
are termed Ausbausprachen (languages by elaboration). This is similar to the concept of
individuation developed by Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi (Marcellesi 1986; Thiers 1986;
Marcellesi, Bulot and Blanchet 2003). Claims to establish languages in their own right
are often furthered by use as a symbol of identity in struggles for political independence.
In the relationship between Channel Islands Norman and French, French, the more
powerful relative, is in Klosss terms the Dachsprache literally roof language, but
sometimes interpreted as overarching language (Muljai 1982, 1984, 1989). Green
(1993: 10) notes that roofed language varieties risk loss of identity through gradual
assimilation or abandonment through erosion of what little remains of their social
prestige. According to Kloss (1952), it should in theory be easier for a language variety
to develop into an Ausbausprache if its speakers are politically independent of the
overarching variety. As the Channel Islands are politically separate from France, this
should, in theory, allow Guernesiais and Jrriais to develop into languages in their own
right. However, the Channel Islands have been politically autonomous since 1204, but
their indigenous languages are now highly endangered. It could even be possible that
they have lost prestige due to the lack of need for them as a symbol of independence (see
2.1). Likewise, regarding the Isle of Man, Clague (2009a: 194) states: The Manx
language is not a badge of identity for the majority of the Manx people. We are
physically separate by virtue of being an island, and are, for the most part, under our own
jurisdiction. Instead of taking advantage of being a roofless dialect to develop as
Ausbausprachen, Guernesiais and Jrriais seem to have scuttled18 under another roof,
English. This is one possible explanation for the prevalence of contact features from
English.
In the early twenty-first century, however, the island governments have begun to
emphasise local distinctiveness as an important aspect of defining their political
independence and place in the wider world. In 2004 the Isle of Man launched Freedom
to Flourish:

The Isle of Mans strategy to enhance its national identity at home and abroad is
rooted in the promise shown above. It is a strategy approved by Tynwald to
promote, protect and improve the Isle of Man. It has been developed after extensive
research across our community, government, businesses and customers. It is
intended to:

Protect our unique identity and heritage.

Ensure that everyone who lives here feels a part of our supportive
community and able to reach their full potential.
Ensure we continue to have a strong economy by raising both the awareness
and image of the Isle of Man internationally.19

hIfearnin (2007b) suggests that this is part of a Europe-wide trend to use

autochthonous languages in the promotion of micro-state identity, also citing the example
of Monaco. The Manx language is a key aspect of this focus on unique identity and
heritage, though for everyone who lives here not just people who claim Manx
ethnolinguistic heritage.
There is an oft-quoted African proverb: Until the lions can tell their stories, tales of
hunting will always glorify the hunter; in a similar vein, Winston Churchill is reputed to
have said History is written by the victors. Likewise, accounts of historical linguistics
tend to be written by (and in) dominant languages. In histories of French such as Lodge
(1993) and Posner (1997), Norman and its literature have been appropriated as Old
French; a similar process occurred with Provenal (Philippe Martel, personal
communication, November 2009).
French and the Channel Island vernaculars were in a diglossic relationship (Ferguson
1959; Hudson 2002) for several hundred years up to the twentieth century: French was
the High variety used for education, religion, legal purposes, etc., and was by and large
acquired through education, while local vernaculars were used in general conversation.
Although diglossia was undoubtedly both a product of and contributor to negative
attitudes, it did not threaten the actual survival of CI Norman; it could even be said that
the relationship was symbiotic (e.g. the use of French in religion contributed to the
maintenance of Guernesiais). Once this stable diglossic relationship was disrupted by the
insertion of English, the use of French declined faster than that of CI Norman, as English
took over High domains and French had rarely been used in domestic domains. Inglis
noted that in Jersey French, though the language of the court proceedings, and of the
legislature, is not in commonplace use even among the upper ranks: nay, the use of it is
even looked upon as affectation (1835: 72). Given that there was a trend among
aristocrats to seek spouses among their English counterparts, it is likely that they were
English-dominant by this time.
There are significant differences between Channel Island Norman and metropolitan
French in vocabulary, grammar and phonology, although by and large the dominant
spellings follow French conventions, so that they are relatively easily read by French
speakers (see 6.5). However, speakers of French remark on the low degree of
comprehensibility with spoken CI Norman. Tomlinson (1994) played speakers of French
and Guernesiais recordings of each others varieties, and found that only about 25 per
cent was mutually intelligible. Conversely, similarities with southern Romance varieties,
especially Italian, are noticeable, as seen in Table 2.1. There are also similarities with
Acadian French in Canada and Louisiana.

Table 2.1 Comparison of Guernesiais with other Romance languages

* using the De Garis dictionary spelling

After the loss of mainland Normandy in 1204, the Normans in England adopted an
English identity, and eventually the English language, although ironically given its
current subaltern position, Norman French remained important in England for several
hundred years, especially in legal terminology, and had a profound influence on the
development of English (Bailey and Maroldt 1977; Milroy 1984; Thomason and
Kaufman 1988).
It is thought by supporters that Norman is now more widely spoken in the Channel
Islands than in mainland Normandy, which is supported by recent research.20 Guernsey
language supporters claim that Norman has maintained some archaic features most
strongly in Guernsey, and also that Guernesiais has been less influenced by French than
its counterpart in Jersey, which is closer to France and has received more French-
speaking immigrants. However, just as there has been influence on Norman from French
in mainland Normandy, there has been convergence between Norman and English in the
Channel Islands (Jones 2002). As will be discussed in 5.4, influence from French can
also be discerned in the usage of speakers who have few opportunities to speak
Guernesiais.
Manx is a Celtic language very closely related to the now extinct Gaelic dialects of
neighbouring Ulster and Galloway (Thomson and Pilgrim, n.d.: 1, cited in Sebba 1998:
1). Ager (2009: 15) states that Manx or Manx Gaelic (Gaelg/Gailck) is a member of the
Goidelic branch of the Insular Celtic languages.21 It developed from the Old Irish
(Gaelic) brought to the Isle of Man during the fourth and fifth centuries AD by
missionaries and others from Ireland. It is interesting that the name of the language in
Manx itself is not differentiated from Gaelic.
Manx originally formed part of a Gaelic dialect continuum stretching from the south
of Ireland to the north of Scotland. Owing to language shift, parts of this chain (e.g. in
north-west Ireland) have been broken, which facilitated the differentiation (or Ausbau) of
Manx from Irish; the fact that the Isle of Man was under English control is also said to
have contributed to this separation ( hIfearnin 2007a; Ager 2009). However, it led to a
hegemonic relationship with English which may in the long run have been more
deleterious to indigenous language practices and the maintenance of Gaelic in the Isle of
Man.

2.2.1 Islands of migration

Emigration and immigration are not limited to small island communities, but as McCall
(1994: 103) notes, due to limited land area, periodic emigration is a feature of most
islands. For most of their histories, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man experienced net
out-migration: young men especially found work on ships (such as in the Newfoundland
fishing trade or the British Navy, including HMS Bounty). Families migrated to the
Americas, Australia and New Zealand. North-eastern Canada retains elements of Norman
in its variety of French (King 1989; Le Sauteur 2004). In the Gasp Peninsula, Canada,
there is a Channel Islands Society whose website claims Today, if one takes a look at
any telephone directory it will be difficult to find one community which does not contain
at least one Channel Island name.22 Young Channel Islanders I have interviewed in my
research still cite the limitations of island life, both economic and cultural, as reasons for
seeking opportunities abroad. It can be surmised that would-be emigrants have relatively
weak attachment to traditional language and culture, and are motivated to learn
languages of wider communication. Nevertheless, this may be a youthful phase (see
5.2.1) and some return in later life to to their roots; some of these become active in
language support or cultural organisations.
The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have also all experienced considerable
immigration, particularly in the last 200 years (Crossan 2007). The vast majority of these
migrants come from the UK, with up to two-thirds of the populations being of UK origin.
This cannot have happened without some effect on the islands societies and cultures.
Immigration continues to account for the majority of growth in population, which has
begun to be of concern to the island governments (States of Guernsey Policy Council
2012; States of Jersey Statistics Unit 2012). Considerable numbers of relatively young
people spend short periods of time in the islands as part of their training in financial
institutions; they tend not to take an interest in island culture and may not even visit rural
areas. However, some incomers from the UK take more interest in local culture (see 5.4).
Guernsey has strict immigration policies, mainly managed through short-term
employment licences, which Jersey is considering introducing. There is also some
longer-term settlement, e.g. through positions seen as essential or through intermarriage.
There have been small but often influential numbers of French speakers in Jersey and
Guernsey since at least the seventeenth century, and several informants report having
French forebears or spouses. Crossan (2005) notes that it was the advent of Protestantism
that introduced the bulk of the people to the French language. In the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, Calvinism grew in the Channel Islands, and Protestant refugees
(known as Huguenots) settled there to escape religious persecution in France following
the Revocation in 1685 of the Edict of Nantes.23 De Garis (1977: 260 and personal
communication) claimed that French speakers gained positions of influence, especially in
religious matters, and introduced negative attitudes towards the indigenous vernaculars.
In Jersey, which is closer to France, large numbers of French (and some Breton) speakers
came to the island as (sometimes seasonal) agricultural workers (Kelleher 1928; Monteil
2000).
In the last few decades, there has been significant immigration from other language
groups. In the Channel Islands, since the 1970s, workers for the tourism industry
especially have been recruited from Madeira, a Portuguese island in the Atlantic.24 In the
2001 Jersey census 7,305 people reported having Portuguese as a primary or secondary
language, compared to 2,874 for Jrriais, although from informal observations by no
means all second-generation immigrants are maintaining their heritage languages.
According to the 2001 Guernsey census, 1,116 of the population were born in Portugal
(of whom 8 also reported being fluent speakers of Guernesiais25). Health professionals
are recruited from numerous origins, including the UK, Ireland and the Philippines.
There is a growing number of Polish migrants in all three islands, and Latvians in
Guernsey (originally recruited for the horticulture industry). A little provision is made for
Portuguese speakers in the form of TV and radio news (some Guernesiais speakers
complain that there is more provision for Portuguese speakers than there is for them), but
there are no formal language maintenance measures for non-indigenous languages, and
little English instruction for speakers of other languages.
Riddell (2007) cites comments by Sue Lissenden, vice-president of the Jersey
Eisteddfod Society (see Chapter 4), on this in-migration:

In the 1980s, in response to the arrival in Jersey of a workforce from Madeira, a

strong attempt was made to cause a Portuguese section [of the Eisteddfod Society]
to be formed. It failed at the time because, it was said, the immigrants wanted to be
absorbed, to enter in the existing classes (which they do), not to be separate. Only
later came the realisation that their culture also must be preserved.
(Lissenden 2004: 19)

Riddell comments that What was considered to be traditionally Jersey was brought
into question, and a cultural space had to be found for the values arriving into the Island
from outside. In unpublished attitude research that I carried out with Goodith White in
2006, comparing attitudes towards Guernesiais, Guernsey English and other languages
used in Guernsey, and Irish Gaelic and Irish English in Cork, Ireland, there was also
some indication that Portuguese was now so well established in Guernsey that it was
accepted as a language of the island (Sallabank and White 2006).
Gawne (2002) reports that in the 1960s and 1970s the Isle of Man experienced a
considerable influx of immigrants from the UK. Several informants have commented that
there was resentment among islanders that some incomers continued to relate primarily
to their British origins rather than to the Isle of Man.

The new resident policies led to massive social and cultural upheaval with
population growth of 13% in the sixties followed by a 21% growth in the seventies.
The severe strain that the arrival of so many outsiders placed on close-knit
traditional Manx communities saw the rapid growth of nationalist politics.
(Gawne 2002: 2)

A Jersey activist also commented on UK influence in the area of education policy:

But the problem we had [in Jersey] which may not have been so evident in the Isle
of Man: post-war, most of our recruiting of teachers was external . . . Whereas a lot
of those have now integrated, for the first ten years or more they werent thinking
locally, they were thinking Bolton, Manchester, Newcastle they could not have an
 island mind . . . it took them a long time to understand some of the issues to do with
an island community . . . theyre all very intelligent, able people but havent got a
clue about Jersey . . . some not all problems politically are down to advice thats
been given to politicians by folk who dont feel Jersey. (JE13)

On the other hand, the same informant opined that this lack of local knowledge can
also be to the advantage of language activists because they knew very little about the
language they had no grounds to oppose it.
There are no official services in any languages apart from English. The 2001 Guernsey
and Manx censuses only asked about indigenous languages, but from my own
observations the populations include speakers of Portuguese, French, Polish, Latvian,
Russian, Dutch, German, Spanish, Basque, Thai, Chinese, Philippine and Indian
languages, and no doubt more. While there are some who argue that immigration has had
a negative impact on indigenous island cultures and languages, unpublished research by
myself, Gary Wilson and Henry Johnson indicates that some newcomers with little or no
connection to the islands where they relocate may become passionate supporters of island
culture. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

2.2.2 Language vitality

In the 2001 Guernsey census (States of Guernsey 2002), 1,327 people reported speaking
Guernesiais fluently (2.22 per cent of the population), of whom 70.4 per cent were aged
65 or over in 2001.26 There has been no official survey since 2001, but speaker numbers
appear to have fallen sharply: Yan Marquis, Guernsey Language Officer from 2008 to
2011, estimates that there are now only a couple of hundred fully fluent speakers, with
the most fluent aged eighty and over (Marquis and Sallabank 2013).
In the 2001 Jersey census (States of Jersey 2002), 2,874 people identified themselves
as speakers of Jrriais (3.2% of the population); however, two-thirds of these speakers
were aged over sixty in 2001, and only 113 declared Jrriais to be their usual everyday
language. The census report added that The number of Jersey French speakers in 2001
was half the number recorded in 1989 (States of Jersey 2002), when 5,720 speakers
were reported (6.9% of the population). The 2011 census did not include a language
question, which lOffice du Jrriais (Jersey Language Office) complained strongly about.
The 2012 Annual Social Survey for Jersey27 therefore included questions on language
supplied by lOffice du Jrriais. This was a postal survey sent to a randomised sample of
4,200 people, of whom 2,400 returned the form. It found that 32% of islanders said that
they are able to understand at least some spoken or written Jrriais. Although this was
presented by lOffice du Jrriais as Good news for Jrriais!,28 the survey revealed that
fewer than 1 per cent of adults in Jersey could speak Jrriais fluently, while 18% reported
being able to speak at least some common words or phrases. Sixty-seven per cent of
adults reported not being able to understand any spoken Jrriais, although 27% could
understand some common words or phrases. As might be expected, older age groups
were more likely to be able to speak Jrriais, with 3% of those aged sixty-five or over
reporting speaking it fluently and an additional 4% of this age group able to speak a lot
of Jrriais.
No census data is available for Sark, which is self-governing, although local sources
estimate the resident population at around 600. Liddicoat (1986) estimated that in 1985
there were approximately fifty speakers, mainly aged sixty or over, of whom he
interviewed twenty. In 2007 Mari Jones (personal communication) located only twelve
speakers of Serquiais on the island. Twenty were identified in 2009 by Yan Marquis
through local contacts, but two have since died. It is thought that a few more Serquiais
speakers live in Guernsey or the UK.
There are probably no longer any speakers of Auregnais, the language of Alderney.
According to Price (2000a), a dozen or so speakers remained at the outbreak of the
Second World War in 1939 and even fewer still survived when the population, which
was evacuated in 1940, returned after the war.29 However, in 201112 I was contacted
by three separate enquirers interested in locating records and/or revitalising Auregnais.
Census data are often not very helpful to linguists. In language shift and acquisition
contexts, it is common for receptive skills to be higher than productive skills. The 2001
Guernsey census was the only one of the three to distinguish between speaking and
listening, and to ask about proficiency:
Q 18 (a) Does the person speak Guernsey-Norman French?

Fluently
A little
Not at all

Q 18 (b) Does the person understand Guernsey-Norman French?

Fully
A little
Not at all

It did not ask about reading and writing; as will be discussed in 4.2, Guernesiais is
considered by many islanders to be an unwritten language.
The 2001 Jersey census30 asked:
Q 9 Which languages do you speak?
 These categories were paraphrased in the census report as main language and
secondary language (States of Jersey 2002).
Although censuses collect demographic data such as age, place of birth and domicile,
gender and occupation, the published reports often do not correlate all of these with
languages: the Isle of Man census report correlates Manx speaker numbers with
administrative divisions, while the Guernsey census only correlates them with country of
birth. The raw figures are not usually published. In addition, like all self-reporting data,
census figures need to be treated with caution (Benton and Benton 2001). An official
who helped to draft the Guernsey census commented that the number of people who
reported speaking or understanding a little might include those who only understand
swear words or know 23 words. Judge (2008) notes that asking somebody whether
they can or whether they do speak a language may lead to quite different responses, as
is shown by the Jersey results.
The age profile of speakers of CI Norman is rising inexorably. There are probably no
young native speakers of any of the varieties, and a decreasing number of middle-aged
speakers, many of whom are not fully fluent. There is thus a strong likelihood of
imminent tip (Dorian 1981) once the eldest generation of speakers dies. The next two to
three decades will therefore be a critical period for Jrriais and Guernesiais. Most
traditional native speakers will pass away, and two of the three Jersey Language Officers
will retire. Unless effective language revitalisation policies are implemented rapidly, by
the 2030s the number of proficient speakers of Jrriais and Guernesiais will be countable
on one or two hands. For language preservation purposes, systematic language
documentation is therefore urgent (see 2.2.3). Chapter 6 will discuss language planning
in response to the demographic challenge, and what might be learnt from the Isle of
Mans experience.
The Isle of Man has a considerably longer history of asking language questions in its
census. As Gawne (2002) notes:

Although the 19th Century began with the overwhelming majority of residents
speaking Manx, by the time the Manx language census of 1901 was recorded the
number of speakers had fallen to 4,419 only 8.1% of the population. By 1921 the
figures had fallen to around 1.5% and they continued to decline until the 1961
census when only 165 people (0.34%) spoke the language. Despite a slight
improvement by the 1971 census (up to 0.52%) the language appeared doomed and
 when the last traditional native speaker, Ned Maddrell, died in 1974, many
academics declared the Manx language to be extinct. Indeed, no question on Manx
was asked in the 1981 census. From this desperate position, the 1991 census made
surprising reading: 740 people were recorded as being able to speak, read or write
Manx around 1% of the population.

As discussed above, census figures need to be treated with caution. Ager (2009)
reports that Carl Marstrander, Professor of Celtic at the University of Oslo, could find
only forty people who spoke Manx to some extent in the late 1920s, and that in 1934 he
believed that only one native speaker remained, even though the 1931 census had listed
529 Manx speakers. In 1946 Charles W. Loch located twenty native speakers (Stowell
2005).
Language vitality is a controversial issue in the Isle of Man. UNESCOs Atlas of the
Worlds Languages in Danger originally categorised Manx as extinct (Moseley 2010),
but agreed to change its classification to Critically endangered with an indication that it
is in the process of revitalisation after protests from the island.31 The Editor of the Atlas,
Christopher Moseley, was invited to the Isle of Man in 2010 to give the annual Ned
Maddrell Lecture and expressed appreciation of language revitalisation efforts. There is a
rhetoric of continuity of language use in the Isle of Man: speakers trace a pedigree of
having learnt Manx (as an adult) from a traditional speaker, or from a linguist who
worked with the last native speakers.
In the 1970s activists who had learnt the language from speakers and linguists
maintained a core of proficient speakers who campaigned for government support (see
Chapter 6); some of them have raised children through Manx. In the 2001 Isle of Man
census, 1,689 people claimed to speak, read or write more than a few words or phrases
of Manx. Agriculture Minister and former Language Officer Phil Gawne notes that this
number had increased tenfold since 1961,32 although attitudes at both periods may have
affected reporting of ability to speak Manx: in the 1960s negative attitudes may have led
to under-reporting, while in the twenty-first century supporters may wish to give an
impression of greater proficiency and vitality. In the 2011 census 1,823 people reported
speaking, reading, or writing Manx; however, the census report (Isle of Man 2012) does
not specify their level of proficiency, or distinguish between productive and receptive
skills. Language supporters estimate the number of fully fluent speakers at between 60
and 150. Ager (2009: 44) reports that in 2009:

Estimates of the current number of fluent Manx speakers range from 50 to 500.
There is a large difference between these estimates because they are based on
different definitions of fluency. The lower estimate is the number of people who are
very fluent in Manx, while the higher estimate is the number who are able to have
a conversation in Manx (Stowell, 2009), (Kermode, 2009) & (Gawne, 2009). [The
references are to interviews.]
 As of 2013 sixty-nine children are enrolled in Manx-medium primary education at the
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh in St Johns; it is unclear whether they are included in these
numbers. Perhaps because all current speakers of Manx are second language speakers,
Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008) feels that fluent is a loaded term
and prefers to use highly competent speakers. This distinction highlights the possible
pitfalls in attempting to evaluate language vitality by numerical means. In any case, as I
argued in Chapter 1, perceptions of the urgency of action to save languages matter
much more to endangered language community members than objective measures of
vitality.

2.2.3 Language documentation

Apart from its heritage or identity value to community members (see Chapter 5), Channel
Islands Norman is of interest to historical linguists because due to their island contexts,
these varieties have diverged the least from mediaeval Norman, which strongly
influenced the development of English; they have also converged less towards modern
French than mainland Norman varieties. As noted above, much Old French literature
was effectively Norman (Posner 1997; Chaurand 1999: 368). Norman is also of interest
to researchers interested in the development of New World French and creoles, as some
areas of North and Central America were colonised from this region (Michaelis 2011).
As much usage remains undocumented, much of the potential contribution to historical
linguistics will be lost if the CI Norman varieties cease to exist without documentation.
Recordings for language preservation purposes need to be properly archived, as well
as digitised, backed up and regularly updated, to preserve them from deterioration and
accidents and to overcome the obsolescence of recording technology. In addition to good
practice developed by traditional libraries and text archives (Conathan 2011), the field of
documentary linguistics is constantly developing and enhancing standards for both
security and accessibility (Nathan 2011).33
The Manx language preservation movement has always made use of the latest
technology. Ager (2009) notes that the Manx language society Yn heshaght Ghailckagh
made the first recordings of native speakers of Manx with an Edison phonograph in 1905
(McArdle 2006), and Austrian academics made recordings using wax cylinders in 1909.
More extensive recordings of native Manx speakers were made in the 1920s and early
1930s. In 1947 the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), amon de Valera, visited the Isle of
Man as part of a tour of Gaelic-speaking nations and commissioned the Irish Folklore
Commission to make recordings in 1948. The complete collection of this archive (over
five hours of digitally re-mastered recordings of the last native Manx speakers and a
selection of Manx dialect speech), with full transcriptions and translations, is available to
buy at museums (Manx National Heritage [1948], n.d.).34 The Manx National Heritage
website states that the organisation preserves a rich archive of original sound recordings
and photographs of the last of the native speakers which are available for consultation by
researchers and modern speakers.35
As will be discussed in 4.2, Manx has been written since the eighteenth century. There
are also a large number of reference materials on Manx: Archibald Cregeen and John
Joseph Kneen compiled a Manx dictionary in the early nineteenth century and a grammar
was published in 1859 by John Kelly. Learning materials have also been published since
the nineteenth century, and on 22 November 2012 the Manx Language Office published
a Manx Gaelic app for Android, iPhone and iPads.36
Sjgren (1964) stated that when he made recordings of Guernesiais in the 1920s he
used the most advanced recording equipment available, but the original recordings are no
longer accessible except through museum equipment, if they still exist.37 One informant,
aged ninety-seven when interviewed in 2005, remembered his father being interviewed
by Sjgren and re-recorded the text and published it in the newsletter of the Guernsey
Society (Roussel 1997); however, it is impossible to tell whether his pronunciation is the
same as in the original. Lsch (2000: 11314) cites an early documentation project
announced in the Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise of 1903 to record the local
peculiarities of the patois spoken in various parishes of the island . . . an effort should be
made to preserve the pronunciation by means of the phonograph, the records being
deposited under seal in safe keeping for a number of years. However, it is not known if
these recordings were ever made and if so where they are now. Likewise, in the 1950s
recordings were made of the French of Guernsey as spoken in St Pierre du Bois, the
Ctel, the Vale and St. Sampsons . . . and it is hoped that, when all the parishes have
been so covered, valuable material for comparative research will have been collected
(Le Huray 1956); but I have been told that these recordings were lost when La Socit
relocated in the 1970s. Some speakers recognised the need to preserve Guernesiais,
Serquiais and Auregnais thirty to forty years ago and made recordings of family
conversations; however, not all are willing to share them with academics or public
archives. The English Folk Song and Dance Society also made recordings of songs and
other folklore from the Channel Islands in the 1970s (Kennedy 1975a, 1975b). In
Guernsey, Yan Marquis (former Language Officer), the author and postgraduate students
are recording as many of the remaining fluent speakers as possible, and archiving of
these recordings is ongoing.38
In the 1920s and 1930s, J. P. Collas collected a large amount of linguistic data in the
Channel Islands, including thematic vocabulary and phonological variants (mainly on
Guernesiais, but with some data from Jersey, Sark and Alderney). Some of this was
published (Collas 1931, 1934), but much of the data remains on handwritten index cards
and in notebooks in two boxes in a museum in Guernsey (with some reported to be at a
university library in Wales). The fragile state of this valuable material, and the difficulty
of interpreting some of the notes, underlines the importance of preservation and metadata
in linguistic documentation. In 2012 Yan Marquis started scanning and cataloguing the
contents of the boxes on behalf of the Collas family. There is increased awareness among
community members of the need to digitise and archive unpublished material, which can
be lost if the authors die and heirs or house clearers do not recognise the value of old
notebooks or cassettes.
Lsch (2000) interprets the 1903 and 1950s Guernesiais recording projects not as an
effort to try to maintain the regional varieties, but only to preserve the peculiarities,
which he views, along with the use of the term patois, as reinforcing low prestige. This
might shed light on some reactions to current language documentation, which, as in the
recordings of late spoken Manx (Broderick 1984, 1986), are finding evidence of
attrition, such as contact features, lack of fluency, idiomatic variation, etc. This evidence
is unwelcome to some supporters of language maintenance who have a more purist
understanding of language. Some learning and reference materials are based on intuitions
about the language as it is perceived, rather than how it is used according to documentary
evidence (see the discussion of language change in 5.4.1). It is also claimed that further
documentation and materials are not necessary (especially if corpus-based materials
might challenge the correctness of earlier ones).
In both Jersey and Guernsey, enthusiasts have compiled dictionaries of their local
languages. Attempts were first made in the nineteenth century: in Jersey by Augustus le
Gros, who died before completing his dictionary, and in Guernsey by George Mtivier
(1870). However, it was not until 19667 that full dictionaries were published.39 Frank
Le Maistres Dictionnaire JrriaisFranais (1966) was the first publication funded by
Le Don Balleine, a charitable fund created by a bequest in 1943 to publish works on and
in Jrriais, and Marie De Gariss Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais was initiated by a
committee of native speakers from a language association, LAssembllae dGuernsiais
(De Garis 1967); a revised edition (De Garis 1982) added a GuernesiaisEnglish word
list. Both dictionaries represent huge efforts of scholarship and dedication, but the
compilers were not trained linguists or lexicographers, and even native speakers report
finding the De Garis dictionary difficult to use. A JrriaisEnglish dictionary was
published in 2004 by LOffice du Jrriais, the Jersey Language Office (see Chapter 6). In
2008 a second edition was published and an EnglishJrriais volume was added, based
on an earlier EnglishJrriais lexicon (Carr 1972).
With regard to Serquiais, the only lexicon published to date is Liddicoats (2001)
Lexicon of Sark Norman French, which is not well known among islanders. Marquis and
I recorded six speakers of Serquiais in 2009 (one of whom had not previously been
recognised as a speaker), but have not yet transcribed or analysed the recordings. Jones
(2012) examined particular lexical and phonological variants compared to other Norman
varieties as part of a wider revision of the Atlas Ethnographique et Linguistique
Normand (Brasseur 1997).
There are very few records at all of Auregnais, the language of Alderney. Frank Le
Maistre, author of the Dictionnaire JersiaisFranais (1967), conducted language
elicitation interviews and also published a short recording of Auregnais (Le Maistre
1982); some words of Auregnais are listed on the website of La Socit Jersiaise,40
which comments LAurgnais est mort nya pus prsonne en Aurgny tchi ple chutte
vielle langue Nouormande (Auregnais is dead there is no longer anyone in Alderney
who speaks this old Norman language).
There are also remarkably few recordings of Jrriais. Mari Jones of Cambridge
University has conducted elicitation sessions in Jersey, Sark and mainland Normandy on
particular linguistic features of Norman for a new edition of the Atlas Linguistique et
Ethnographique Normand (Brasseur 1997) and has supplied copies to LOffice du
Jrriais. However, no recordings of Jrriais are currently deposited in archives which
meet conventional standards for security and accessibility. Regional varieties of Jrriais
are in danger of disappearing without record as no comprehensive documentation is
being carried out.

2.3 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined background information relevant to the case studies of
language policies which follow. It can be seen from this chapter that there are both
similarities and differences between the islands. The most obvious difference is
geographical, which relates to culture.
The Isle of Man is situated between Ireland, England and Scotland and originally
formed part of a Gaelic Celtic cultural continuum. The Channel Islands are
geographically close to Brittany as well as Normandy, which have been parts of France
for many hundreds of years. There are also similarities, differences and rivalries between
the islands, especially between the two Channel Islands jurisdictions of Jersey and
Guernsey. In all three polities there has been considerable influence and immigration
from the UK, especially England, with a more varied cultural and population mix in
recent years (although all three have been at crossroads of international trade and politics
for millennia).
In all three islands these similarities and differences are reflected in beliefs, attitudes
and ideologies concerning language and culture, which in turn affect language policies.
Although (or because) there has been considerable influence and immigration from
England, Manx language activists and planners have frequently looked to their Celtic
neighbours for both emotional and practical support; this influence can be seen in
language policy measures and outcomes (see Chapter 7).
In the Channel Islands the geographical closeness to France, but political affiliation to
Britain, are reflected in the sociolinguistic situation. Linguistic and cultural ties with
Normandy are highlighted by some language supporters, especially in relation to a
language festival which reinforces links between the islands and the Norman mainland.
The degree of relationship between French and the CI Norman varieties, and the extent
and acceptability of linguistic influence from English, is a matter for ideological debate,
especially in Guernsey; this will be discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5.
 3 Researching language attitudes and ideologies

3.1 Attitudes and ideologies

The very fact of studying a minority language raises awareness of that language. In a
small island community, it is inevitable that research by an outside expert on a topic
relevant to local identity and politics will attract attention and hence raise awareness of
language issues; it is also impossible for a researcher to remain immune to community
dynamics and local politics. Local media have cited my visits as evidence of increased
interest in local languages. Often my credentials, commitment and Guernsey links were
cross-examined before informants agreed to be interviewed. Government officials have
taken part in interviews, invited me to consultations and commissioned a report from me,
and used some of the data in a meeting of the British-Irish Council.
In this chapter I look at the processes involved in researching language attitudes and
ideologies. I discuss various approaches and issues regarding the investigation of
language attitudes and ideologies, leading to a discussion of how linguistic practices,
perceptions and ideologies might interact. I argue that researchers (especially
ethnographers) are not exempt from ideological processes, and that research on minority
languages which did not take into account both researcher positionality and sociopolitical
issues would miss essential insights. I use the term researchers paradox to echo the
well-known observers paradox: a researchers effect on the situation studied can be seen
as this effect writ large.
Language attitudes, motivations and ideologies are of key importance, both when
languages are declining and during attempts at language revitalisation. This may seem
obvious, but what Haarmann (1990: 105) calls prestige planning in essence public
relations to encourage acceptance of policies is often omitted from top-down language
planning and policy implementation, which inevitably affects outcomes. On the other
hand, language activities organised by grass-roots groups in the Channel Islands seem to
focus overwhelmingly on awareness-raising, in outcome if not by intent. Language
attitudes and ideologies are associated both with perceptions of a languages vitality and
with language practices, and thus with language policies at all levels of society
although there is no simple connection between expressed attitudes and actions.
Language policies, attitudes and ideologies are also intrinsically linked to social
processes and community dynamics.
As noted by Edwards (1999), people do not react to the world through sensory input
alone, but rather in terms of what they perceive that input to mean. Peoples perceptions
are central to language attitudes and ideologies, as has been highlighted by researchers in
the field of perceptual dialectology (Preston 1989; Hartley and Preston 1999; Preston
1999, 2000; Bradac, Cargile and Halett 2001; Long and Preston 2002; Watts and Trudgill
2002; Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003; Nieldzielski and Preston 2003). Garrett et
al. (2003: 12) argue that attitudes to language underpin all manner of sociolinguistic and
social psychological phenomena: for example, the group stereotypes by which we judge
other individuals, how we position ourselves within social groups, how we relate to
individuals and groups other than our own. Garrett et al. also note that cognitive
processes are likely to be shaped by the individual and collective functions arising from
stereotyping in individual and intergroup relations (2003: 3). They argue that some
language attitudes are acquired at an early age and are therefore likely to be relatively
enduring.
It can thus be seen that there are overlaps between definitions of attitudes, perceptions,
beliefs and ideologies regarding language. Baker (1992: 13) emphasises that the notions
of attitudes, ideologies, motives, traits, beliefs, concepts, constructs and opinions are
interrelated, adding that in studies, attitudes and motivation tend to be treated
synonymously, without discussion of the level of overlap and difference (1992: 14).
Citing Ellis (1985: 117), Baker notes that the lack of agreed definitions makes it difficult
to compare theoretical propositions: for example, opinions and attitudes are also often
treated as synonymous, but Garrett et al. (2003) stress that peoples expressed opinions
may not reflect their attitudes.
Garrett et al. (2003: 3) define attitude as an evaluative orientation to a social object of
some sort, but that, being a disposition, an attitude is at least potentially an evaluative
stance that is sufficiently stable to allow it to be identified and in some sense measured;
furthermore, they claim that attitudes are systematically linked to behaviour because they
predispose us to act in a certain way.
It is commonly found that people will express one kind of attitude and then behave in
a way which is inconsistent with this attitude attitudes frequently fail to predict
behaviour and practices (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, cited in Potter and Wetherell 1987:
53). Baker (1992: 1516) also observes that behaviour often seems incongruent with
expressed attitudes, but that there is a common belief that underlying attitudes can be
discovered by observing practices, or by self-reports (which are more economical for
researchers to analyse) although the latter may consciously or unconsciously disguise
inner attitudes. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1998: 63) distinguish between overt
(public) and private (covert) attitudes; the latter are more likely to be reflected in
practices. Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer describe a context where, although stated beliefs
about the indigenous language were positive, and were reflected in overt involvement in
revitalisation efforts that the authors refer to as technical fixes, unstated beliefs and
ideologies prevented these efforts from changing individuals actual language practices.
This can clearly have a bearing on the effectiveness of language planning measures.
Baker (1992) notes that early research assumed that attitudes were unidimensional, but
that more recently a sixfold conceptual distinction has been recognised (e.g. Lewis
1975):

General approval: I like speaking . . .

Commitment to practise: I want to maintain . . .
Ethnic tradition: we owe it to our forefathers to maintain . . .
Economic and social factors: . . . offers advantages in seeking good job
opportunities
Family and local considerations: . . . is important in family life
Personal ideological considerations: . . . provides a range of aesthetic experiences
in literature.

These particular dimensions may not be relevant in all contexts, but the multiple
aspect tallies with recognition of the multidimensionality of ideologies: Language
ideologies are profitably conceived as multiple because of the multiplicity of meaningful
social divisions (class, gender, clan, elites, generations, etc.) within sociocultural groups
that have potential to produce divergent perspectives expressed as indices of group
membership (Kroskrity 2000b: 12).
The best-known distinction in language attitudes (or orientations in their terms) is
between integrative and instrumental (Gardner and Lambert 1972), but Baker (1992: 35
6) notes that research in second language learning has found only a small proportion of
success attributable to an integrative orientation. Baker recommends that language
planners exercise discretion in which orientations they invoke: integration may not
necessarily be the most appropriate, for example if young people see a minority language
as old-fashioned (see Chapter 5).
Garrett et al. (2003: 9) note that the amount of accord between stated attitudes and
behaviour can vary according to the complexity of domains: for example, whether the
behaviour involves a long-term commitment (such as learning a language) or a short-
term adjustment (e.g. of speech style in a job interview). They suggest that negative
attitudes can affect behaviour in opposite ways: if speakers of a particular variety fare
worse in the labour market, the education system, etc., awareness of such consequences
might lead to language shift. Alternatively, psychological reactance might set in,
leading to concerted efforts to protect and promote the language variety and to change
attitudes and behaviours (2003: 1213).
Schiffman (1996: 5) notes that the beliefs (one might even use the term myths) that a
speech community has about language (and this includes literacy) in general and its
language in particular (from which it usually derives its attitudes towards other
languages) are part of the social conditions that affect the maintenance and transmission
of its language. He adds that language policies do not evolve ex nihilo; they are not
taken off a shelf, dusted off, and plugged into a particular polity; rather, they are cultural
constructs, and are rooted in and evolve from historical elements of many kinds, some
explicit and overt, some implicit and covert (1996: 22). He terms this linguistic culture
rather than ideology, but there are clear parallels with Schieffelin, Woolard and
Kroskritys (1998) and Irvine and Gals (2000) discussions of ideologies, as well as
Bourdieus (1977, 1990, 1991, 1993) notion of habitus, which Bourdieu (1993: 78, 86)
defines as the product of social conditions . . . which has become durably incorporated
in the body in the form of permanent dispositions.
Language ideologies have been described and (re)defined numerous times, so rather
than propose a new definition I will adapt the discussion by myself and Peter Austin
(Austin and Sallabank forthcoming b). They may be defined very broadly, as in:

ideas about language and about how communication works as a social process
(Woolard 1998: 3)
socioculturally motivated ideas, perceptions and expectations of language,
manifested in all sorts of language use (Blommaert 1999: 1)
language attitudes and ideologies . . . are often seen as ideas which people just
happen to have (Blommaert 1999: 10).

Although these descriptions highlight the social or sociocultural aspect of language,

they do not adequately convey the systematic nature of ideologies, which is articulated
more clearly by Steger (2003: 93):

an ideology can be defined as a system of widely shared ideas, patterned beliefs,

guiding norms and values, and ideals accepted as truth by a particular group of
people.

This definition conveys the notion that ideologies are a social phenomenon shared by
members of a group (see the discussion of endangered language community in Chapter
1); however, it does not make any mention of the unconscious acceptance of ideologies,
which makes them all the more powerful as drivers of practices, since many people are
unaware that their actions and reactions are based on socioculturally inculcated beliefs.
Attitudes and ideologies do not simply arise without foundation: they are based on
deep-seated dispositions and strongly held beliefs and perceptions concerning both
language practices (what people do) and policies (what people should do). These
dispositions are acquired through a gradual process of inculcation in which early
childhood influences are particularly important (Bourdieu 1991: 12). Such received
ideologies often go unchallenged because they help organize the tremendous complexity
of human experience into fairly simple, but frequently distorted, images that serve as
guide and compass for social and political action (Steger 2003: 93). Stegers definition
is not specific to language ideologies, so it can be complemented by that of Schieffelin et
al. (1998: 34): representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the
intersection of language and human beings in a social world.
 I propose to use as a working definition McCartys (2011) summary:

Ideologies about language are largely tacit, taken-for-granted assumptions about

language statuses, forms, users, and uses that, by virtue of their common sense
naturalization, contribute to linguistic and social inequality.
(McCarty 2011: 10, who in turn acknowledges Tollefson 2006: 47)

Baker (1992: 14) notes that the difference between ideology and attitude is partly
about different traditions of research, theory and expression, particularly between
sociology and social psychology. He refers to Cooper and McGaugh (1966), who regard
ideology as:

an elaborate cognitive system rationalising forms of behaviour . . . Ideology tends to

refer to codifications of group norms and values. At an individual level, ideology
tends to refer to broad perspectives on society a philosophy of life. In this sense,
ideology may be a global attitude.
(Baker 1992: 15)

In the current orthodoxy in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, ideologies are

held to be more explanatory than attitudes or beliefs; however, this too has become a
disciplinary ideology which is rarely questioned.
Attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and ideologies can be seen as points on a continuum
(though as Austin and I (forthcoming b) note, there seems to be no consensus as to where
each comes, or what constitutes the continuum), or as manifestations of overall
predispositions. It therefore seems sensible to treat attitudes as overt manifestations of
implicit ideologies.
Heinrich (2005: 61) comments:

Since language is a commodity shared among all members of a speech community,

it becomes the prime medium of ideological conflict and province of power
struggles. The study of language ideology has therefore to account for (1) the
processes in which ideology is created from dominant groups and (2) for the effects
it takes on those whose interests are not recognised in these processes.

One of these effects is the process of subordination, marginalisation, erasure and

misrecognition (in Bourdieus terms) of local languages. According to Heinrich, the
progressive erasure of a language involves four stages: fragmentation, marginalisation,
sublimation and subordination.

(1) Fragmentation processes are characterised by a narrowing of a language or

language variety to restricted functions . . .
 (2) Marginalisation refers to processes in which the subordinate status brought
about as a result of fragmentation is reproduced . . .
(3) Sublimation refers to phenomena in which a language or language variety is
decontextualised from its unmarked functions. As an effect, specific language
behaviour ceases to be regarded as normal and inevitably foregrounds specific
connotations. . . . That is to say, language structure and use which is regarded
as neutral and is therefore expected is unmarked, while everything which
deviates from such expectations is marked.
(4) Subordination is the final phase in the progressive erasure process. It refers to
the stage at which dominated communities find themselves in a position where
they can no longer question the hegemonic imposition of the dominating
culture. Subordination is the point of no return. (Heinrich 2005: 623)

All of these processes can be seen in the decline of Guernesiais, Jrriais and Manx, as
will be discussed in 4.1.5. For example, as noted by Broderick (1999), the domains in
which Manx was traditionally used became increasingly restricted by the mid twentieth
century, which led to a spiral of reduced use; this is a common feature of endangered
languages (Dorian 1989).
However, erasure is not necessarily the final stage in the development of language
ideologies with regard to endangered languages. There are also ideologies which emerge
during language revitalisation efforts, especially in relation to purism, language change
and control of language policy (see Chapter 5). Marquis and I (forthcoming) have
identified two main divergent trends in current language ideologies in Guernsey, which
we have termed static and dynamic viewpoints, and which are discussed more fully in
7.3.1. Another major source of ideological debate (in the terms of Blommaert 1999) in
language planning and revitalisation is how language itself is defined and conceived:
many campaigners and policy-makers assume that small, minority languages can and
should follow the hegemonic standardisation model of larger nation-state languages such
as French and English. As Marquis and I (forthcoming) note, ideologies are largely
unstated yet profoundly influence language planning and policy at both personal and
public levels. In the conclusion to this chapter, and in Chapter 7, I will discuss the
interface between ideology and language policy.

3.1.1 Attitude shift

. . . aoshtaeirr i voudrei tou l dvisa mais ya lei droine vingt aen shtei you come
from the country you et yera aen pti mais aoshtaeirr lei jonne gen veule tou l
faire. (GF11)
(. . . now theyd all like to speak it but twenty years ago it was you come from the
country you and therell be a bit but now the young people all want to do it.)
 Negative attitudes towards minority language varieties are well documented and are
not only held by majority language speakers, but also assimilated by speakers of the
minority languages themselves; they are both outcome and cause of language shift.
Kroskrity (2000b: 13) cites Bourdieus (1977: 164) observation that some ideologies are
dominant and become successfully naturalised by a group. This can lead to linguistic
insecurity and unwillingness to speak minority languages; Labov (1966: 489) claimed
that the term linguistic self-hatred may not be too extreme. Fishman (1991: 340)
states that such self-views are reflections of the destruction of Xish self-esteem, due to
decades of negative comparisons with Yish political power, economic advantage and
modern sophistication.1 Examples are found in numerous contexts, for example in Gals
seminal early study of language shift in southern Austria: While Hungarian is the
language of the past and of the old, German is seen as the language of the future (Gal
1979: 106). Kuter (1989: 76) identified symbolic values enshrined in the use of Breton
and French in Brittany:

Political: national versus regional

Socioeconomic: French as the language of civilisation, progress and the future,
compared to Breton as a language of the past, fit only for backward peasants
Cultural: French as an international, urban language, compared to Breton as a
marker of a uniquely local, rural identity.

Although these distinctions may overlap, they are common to many language contexts.
However, in the contexts discussed in this book, the national versus regional distinction
may not be so relevant, as the islands are micro-states rather than regions of a larger
country; however, despite political independence the islands are heavily influenced by
the cultures of their larger neighbours. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5 as
there are important differences in self-representation in this respect.
Use of a minority language comes to be stigmatised, so that speakers feel ashamed of
it: When the children object to speaking a language, gradually forget it or pretend to
have forgotten it because they are ashamed of it, its future is much less assured (Calvet
1998: 75).
This is the scenario painted by most studies of language attitudes before the turn of the
millennium. But a gradual shift in language ideologies can be discerned worldwide over
the last tenthirty years towards a broadly positive rhetoric in favour of saving
endangered languages, at grass-roots, academic, official and right up to
intergovernmental levels. The islands that this book focuses on are no exception. During
the course of my research in Guernsey in the first decade of the twenty-first century, it
became evident from interviews, anecdotal reports and the media that attitudes towards
Guernesiais were becoming more positive. Wherever I went I found anecdotal reports of
changing attitudes:
 A student working in a stationery shop where I photocopied some questionnaires
expressed interest and asked for a copy.
A 27-year-old graphic designer I met at a museum exhibition said she was very
interested in Guernesiais and was in favour of teaching it, expressing the opinion
that children should know more about Guernsey culture and history.
A man in late middle age at the same event told me he had wanted to learn
Guernesiais that winter but had too much on; he said he would like to document it
when he retired.

I therefore decided to conduct research2 to test these reports of attitude shift, a term I
use to echo language shift, although the direction of attitude shift tends to support a
reversal of language shift. This phenomenon could even be referred to as ideology shift
because it seems to be happening on a society-wide basis (even a worldwide one, given
the upsurge in interest in endangered languages in the 1990s and 2000s). Although this
shift has been noted for some time (Baker 1992; Dorian 1993a), the processes have not
been widely studied. It has been identified as common among the generation whose
parents shifted language for economic reasons (Crystal 2000: 106).
Wilson (2008) argues that the economic stability and growth that have occurred as a
result of the success of the offshore banking and services industry in the Isle of Man have
provided the basis for changes in language attitudes. He cites Ingleharts (1977: 3) claim
that the values of western publics have been shifting from an overwhelming emphasis
on material well-being and physical security toward greater emphasis on quality of life.
This is reminiscent of Walkers (1993) interpretation of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs:
basic needs such as food and security have to be satisfied before higher concerns such
as esteem and self-actualisation. Thus, people whose main concern is food and security
are motivated to learn a language which they perceive as more likely to fulfil those needs
indeed, in many cases the dominant language or a language of wider communication is
the only route to education and jobs. Their descendants are more economically secure,
having benefited from increased economic opportunities through language shift. This
third generation has the leisure (self-actualisation, in Maslows (1954) terms) to regret
what was lost, to concern themselves with identity issues, and to start language
revitalisation campaigns. This theory (which is as yet unproven empirically) goes some
way towards explaining why language revitalisation movements reported through
academic literature tend to be found in Westernised contexts. However, it is debatable
whether economic security is a prerequisite for identity and other self-actualisation issues
to be considered by individuals (Friederike Lpke, personal communication, February
2009). It is also quite possible that small revitalisation projects away from mainstream
media and academic scrutiny are less well known, for example a project in Northern
Nigeria reported by my former colleague Stuart McGill (personal communication, May
2010).
Kroskrity (2000b: 13) observes that even dominant ideologies are dynamically
responsive to ever-changing forms of oppositions, e.g. the move from generic he to he
or she in English since the 1980s. He suggests that the more aware group members are
of ideologies, the more these can be challenged/contested (2000b: 1819). By
researching and revealing unconscious language ideologies, and challenging socially
accepted attitudes, I aim to confront deeply ingrained beliefs about, for example, the
inferiority of a particular way of speaking, or the notion that acquiring a language of
wider communication necessitates abandoning a language of identification.
Earlier research into attitudes towards minority and endangered languages focused
largely on the attitudes of the (remaining) speakers and how these attitudes relate to the
relative vitality of the language: how many speakers, their age profile, whether the
language is being passed to children, etc. (e.g. Dorian 1981; Giles and Johnson 1987;
Priestly 1989; Williamson 1991; Currie and Hogg 1994; Jones 2001, to name but a few).
Such studies tend to emphasise decline; until recently there was little research into the
motivation of people involved in attempts to halt or reverse language shift. Dorian
(1993a) warned that research which reports on only the abandonment phase of a
language, and which concentrates on negative attitudes, can obscure a longer-term
dynamic by overlooking reactivation efforts by later generations. It is therefore a
welcome development to see that recent studies are starting to address this issue (King
2001; Kroskrity and Field 2009; Reyhner and Lockard 2009; Meek 2011; Urla 2012),
perhaps another sign of the growing maturity of the field and also of changing attitudes
and growing confidence.
But endangered languages are not spoken in isolation: language shift is a response to a
situation which involves contact with at least one other language community, in an
unequal power relationship. Given that they are in a minority, speakers attitudes do not
necessarily carry weight with decision-makers. The language revitalisation movements
that are usually seen as the most successful generally start as grass-roots campaigns,
which eventually lobby for official support and funding, e.g. Mori in New Zealand, or
Welsh in Wales (Spolsky 2004; Edwards and Newcombe 2005b; Grenoble and Whaley
2006). Accomplishing this would not be possible without at least implicit support from
the majority community, whose taxes are needed to fund government-funded language
planning measures. In Jersey and the Isle of Man, and perhaps to a lesser extent in
Guernsey, the efforts of grass-roots language campaigners in raising awareness of
minority languages have contributed to majority acceptance of a role for government in
language planning, and to a political consensus that support for maintaining a distinct
linguistic identity is a good thing. However, despite official and unofficial contacts and
sociolinguistic parallels, language policy has developed differently in each island, which
highlights the importance of understanding contextual and ideological factors.
The attitudes of members of the community who do not speak or use a minority
language are thus relevant both to the practices of speakers and to the stances and
policies adopted by gatekeeping and funding authorities. Yet the attitudes of non-
speakers are even less studied than those of language activists. The case of Mori is a
rare example where a government has taken active steps to promote a minority
indigenous language to the majority population, albeit with mixed results (de Bres 2011).
The few studies which do look at majority attitudes (e.g. Edwards 1977; Hoare and
Coveney 2000; Garrett et al. 2003; Annamalai 2004) tend to find negative attitudes (May
2006).
Fishman (1991) prefaces his framework for reversing language shift by an important
caveat, assuming prior ideological clarification, i.e. that campaigners or language
planners have agreed basic foundations such as the relationship between language and
culture, what exactly they are trying to preserve, why it is desirable. In his revisiting of
the framework ten years later, Fishman (2001: 541) admits that it is quite common for
enthusiasts to embark on language planning and revitalisation activities without such
clarification, and without convincing arguments with which to counter critics.
In order to promote ideological clarification in language planning, or even to find out
whether it is worthwhile for language supporters to expend time and energy on
awareness-raising and lobbying officialdom, more research is necessary into: (a) whether
and how predominantly language attitudes and ideologies among both majority and
minority group members can change, and (b) whether, if there is majority-population
support for minority language maintenance, the effectiveness of language planning is
increased (Fishman 1991; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998; Fishman 2001; Kroskrity
and Field 2009).

3.2 Investigating language attitudes and ideologies

Attitudes and ideologies are of course impossible to observe directly, so they have to be
inferred using various techniques. Market research and opinion surveys assume that
attitudes can be deduced through direct questions, using standardised questionnaires (e.g.
Oppenheim 1992; Payne and Payne 2004). Advantages include the following:

Responses can easily be categorised.

Comparisons and contrasts can be drawn.
Statistical analysis is facilitated (Baker 1992).

However, people do not necessarily reveal private beliefs or attitudes when directly
questioned, but may try to project attitudes they feel are more socially acceptable or
which they presume the researcher is looking for (Low 1999). In addition, as Foddy
(1993) points out, the advantages rest on assumptions which are challenged by
qualitative researchers, which I summarise as follows:

Answers are more valid if respondents have not been told why the researcher is
asking the question.
The research situation per se does not influence the nature of the answers.
 The process of answering questions per se does not change the respondents
beliefs, opinions, habits, etc.

Responses can vary according to how respondents perceive the researcher, as well as
according to changing ideological undercurrents which make certain dispositions more or
less acceptable. Garrett et al. (2003: 5) admit that evaluative responses in interviews or
questionnaires may be so superficial and unstable that they might be labelled non-
attitudes . . . where people might just make up an evaluation on the spot, perhaps as a
first-reaction to a new topic, or to one that is too complex to evaluate fully. Gomm
(2004: 196) warns that in ethnography too, it cannot necessarily be assumed that studying
people in one situation will tell us about how they behave or think in general, nor that the
themes identified in analysis actually tell us something about the way peoples minds are
organised or their ideologies.
Some researchers believe that attitudes represent dispositions stable enough to be
measured (e.g. Baker 1992; Garrett 2010), while others do not (e.g. Potter and Wetherell
1987). The apparent impasse can be overcome if the researcher takes into account that
the context of filling in a questionnaire or taking part in an interview may have an effect
on expressed overt attitudes, as can normative pressures; and, crucially, if the researcher
accepts that respondents conscious verbalisation of attitudes can provide a window into
underlying belief systems and ideologies. Mason (2002: 64) stresses that peoples
experiences or understandings can only be constructed or reconstructed in interviews.
Many researchers therefore employ indirect approaches such as speaker-evaluation
techniques and ethnography. However, there are problems common to both qualitative
and quantitative approaches: in participant observation, as with quantitative surveys, it is
likely that the very act of conducting research influences respondents behaviour.
Garrett et al. (2003: 6) argue:

Even when social evaluations can be shown to be variable across or within social
situations, this does not preclude the existence of stable subjective trends existing at
higher levels . . . any more than systematic language variation in the speech of an
individual severely problematizes the notion of someone having a dialect, sharing
features with others at the level of community.

Expressed attitudes may thus be seen as the stated articulation of a (perhaps partial)
recognition of an underlying ideology. In addition, ideologies might be said to be social
manifestations of implicit belief systems. Private attitudes may be seen as more closely
reflecting underlying ideologies, but are of course harder to discover than overt ones.
Fluidity in attitudes is also in line with postmodern views of identity as constructed,
fluid, multiple, impermanent and fragmentary (Bendle 2002: 12). This is particularly
salient since my research has found respondents constructions of attitudes and identity
with regard to language to be so intertwined as to be virtually inseparable.
Instability in attitudes is not a problem for language planning, which is predicated on
the notion that attitudes can change and relates back to prestige planning (see Chapter 1):
Baker (1992: 21) observes that attempting language shift by language planning,
language policy making and the provision of human and material resources can all come
to nothing if attitudes are not favourable to changes. Garrett et al. (2003) also note that
common sense and advertising commonly assume that influencing attitudes can alter
behaviour. This is indeed the aim of much language planning, especially prestige and
image planning (Ager 2005). However, Garrett et al. (2003: 79) observe that the
relationship may not be simple and is complicated by the impossibility of directly
observing underlying attitudes as well as by social constraints (or even ideologies) on
behaviour.
Research methods are dictated not only by epistemological approach but by
considerations of the audience for the findings. In order to try to gauge a cross-section of
societal views on language, I conducted a questionnaire-based attitude statements survey
in Guernsey in 2004, which was both preceded and followed by ethnographic interviews
and observations (both participant and non-participant). The survey was carried out in the
form of a questionnaire, partly in order to survey a wider range of respondents than could
be interviewed in the time available, and partly with an eye to the potential impact on
government language policy: quantitative data is more highly valued by decision-makers
than ethnographic data. The results were incorporated into a report commissioned by the
States of Guernsey Culture and Leisure Ministry in 2007. Follow-up interviews were
carried out with 10 per cent of respondents, and politicians and civil servants were also
interviewed. The difficulties inherent in trying to obtain a true picture of attitudes are
illustrated by the fact that in the follow-up interviews, some respondents gave different
answers from their questionnaire ones. Results will be discussed in the following
chapters.
Different methods also provide opportunities for approaching the same situation from
different points of view, thus gaining further insight. Garrett et al. (2003: 227) stress the
advantages of an integrated approach and a battery of methods. Mason (1996: 4)
remarks: I do not think research practice has to involve stark either/or choices between
qualitative and quantitative methodology . . . any researcher should always think
carefully about integrating different methods. The use of more than one method or
source of data is referred to as triangulation (Kelle 2001; Bryman 2004: 275). This has
been a guiding principle in my choice of data collection instruments. Questionnaires
were used to generate theories and questions (such as the role of identity and attitude
shift), which were tested and refined using qualitative methods, and vice versa. As noted
by Bryman (2004: 460), qualitative research can facilitate the interpretation of the
relationship between quantitative variables.
In this book I investigate the interplays between changing attitudes, the role of identity
in language attitudes and practices, language-related campaigning and shifts in
underlying ideologies. Individuals attitudes are investigated in order to throw light on
societal tendencies and changing ideologies.
As noted above, for the most part language ideologies are implicit; language
ideological debates (Blommaert 1999) are likewise largely unspoken too. They therefore
need to be construed from expressed attitudes and observations of practices and
statements using methods such as ethnographic interviews, participant and non-
participant observation, and discourse analysis.
A more ethnographic approach also allows the questions who speaks what language
when, and where (Fishman 1965) to be expanded to why. A major issue, which relates
social network models to questions of identity (Gumperz 1982; Milroy 1982, 1987), is
why some people maintain their ancestral language and transmit it to their children, while
others give it up; and why some are motivated to campaign for language maintenance or
revitalisation. Becoming reasonably proficient in Guernesiais has allowed me to observe
actual language practices, which can be compared to self-reported perceptions. Greater
familiarity with informants also enables covert views as well as overt ones to be elicited.
My knowledge of Guernesiais also allows me to understand the majority of Jrriais,
although Jrriais speakers find it harder to understand Guernesiais, especially Western
dialects; my linguistic training also gives me an advantage.
Qualitative research attempts to give respondents a say in how research develops,
which reduces comparability or generalisability of data but increases detail.
Ethnographers frequently claim to be able to observe reality more closely than
quantitative researchers (Hammersley 1993: 13). Dorian (1981: 157) administered
questionnaires, for purposes of comparison with other studies, only after fifteen years of
ethnographic study, and noticed that two sections of her questionnaires produced sizeable
discrepancies from the ethnographic findings (1981: 159); she placed more credence on
her observations and knowledge of the community. In addition, questionnaire responses
have been shown to relate poorly to actual behaviour (Bryman 2004: 444), whereas
qualitative research such as participant observation studies behaviour in context.

3.2.1 Positionality: the myth of impartiality and the

researchers paradox
Ricento (2000) explores the evolution of language policy and planning research since the
end of the Second World War. He identifies three types of factors as having been
instrumental in shaping the field:

1. Macro sociopolitical: national or supranational politics, wars, large-scale

migrations, globalisation, etc.
2. Epistemological: concerning paradigms of knowledge and research especially
postmodernism in the case of research on endangered languages, although
 influences on other fields such as neo-Marxism in economics and political
science are relevant
3. Strategic: the explicit reasons why researchers conduct research, which could
include uncovering the sources of structural socioeconomic inequality,
demonstrating the economic costs or benefits of particular language policies, or
justifying the implementation of particular language in education policies
(Ricento 2000: 197).

Although Ricento links these themes to periods in the development of language policy
research, it is clear that, for example, macro sociopolitical issues did not stop having an
impact at the end of the 1960s; that knowledge paradigms and personal and disciplinary
ideologies have always affected researchers approaches; and that researchers have
always had agendas, even when claiming to be dispassionate. Ricento comments, I
reject the idea that research is unconnected to strategic purposes (2000: 197). It is in the
nature of sociolinguistic research that it is not conducted in a vacuum. Social research is
interested in people, whose responses are not uniform and predictable.
Likewise, the researcherinformant relationship is not a simple linear opposition or
impersonal observation. There is a trend towards advocacy, reciprocity and participatory
research (Cameron 1992; Cameron et al. 1993; Mason 2002; Grinevald 2003; Gomm
2004). Researchers in the field of endangered languages are often motivated not only by
academic curiosity, but also by concern for the loss of linguistic diversity, and often by a
link to the community being studied. (Even if personal friendships did not exist
previously, they almost invariably do after lengthy contact.) Grenoble and Whaley
(1998) consider that the ideal researcher into endangered languages is a member of the
community schooled in linguistic methods; clearly, such a researcher will not be
dispassionate. As I mentioned earlier with regard to my own research, Jaffe (1999a: 5)
notes that in many cases, conversation itself was predicated on some demonstration of
sympathy on my part and overtly states her commitment as a proponent of the Corsican
language. Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, in such circumstances
detachment would not further research goals or facilitate participant observation. This
argument returns us to a basic tenet of qualitative and ethnographic research: that
intellectual rigour is improved by depth of knowledge of the context being studied.
Nevertheless, some researchers consciously promote a position of neutrality (Edwards
2010). Newman (2003: 6) avoids addressing non-linguistic factors, complaining that

whereas fieldwork does entail real ethical and professional responsibilities to the
people whose language one is studying, I am troubled by the notion that researchers
have an obligation to spend half their time doing what I would call linguistic social
work. I know that this is an unfashionable position nowadays, but I would argue that
there is value in pure basic research and that as scientists we have to resist the ever-
present pressure to justify our work on grounds of immediate social relevance.
 He goes on to state:

As linguists, we can attempt to educate and inform responsible persons in

government, education and business about the significance and value of linguistic
diversity in their countries, but we have no right to intervene in domestic policy
matters nor to undertake linguistic social work under the guise of scientific research.
(Newman 2003: 8)

The view expressed by Newman may be seen as somewhat nave in that it appears to
assume (or at least imply) that:

language diversity and endangerment can be divorced from social processes;

linguistic research can be conducted without social engagement;
research into the social processes of language shift and revitalisation is not
scientific (see the discussion of Romaines (2008) position (2) in Chapter 1).

Walsh (2009) comments that this view impinges on the question of what beliefs and
ideologies linguists have about endangered languages and whether these are in conflict
with those of communities (sic; see 1.2). Although Labov (1982) considered the
possibility that advocacy by a researcher might undermine the validity of findings, he
concluded that the field became more objective and more scientific as a result of
linguists commitment. Bowes (1996), however, warns against an uncritical stance of
empowerment right or wrong, which may not in fact reflect respondents views but may
impose the researchers own, and of the potential for rejection of outsider comment
(which can be the case in Guernsey). Bowes concludes nevertheless that researchers
inevitably retain their ability to address wider audiences, of other researchers, other
professionals, policy makers, and, probably in a more limited way, a wider public.
Communication to these audiences of work which has implications wider than for the
locality of a project is vital, and researchers retain this responsibility. Cameron et al.
(1993: 20) view an advocacy position as characterised by a commitment on the part of
the researcher not just to research on subjects but research on and for subjects. They cite
the example of the Ann Arbor Black English trial in 1979, when a group of African-
American parents in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, brought a lawsuit against the city
schools for their failure to acknowledge and address the specific educational needs of
children whose first language was claimed to be American Vernacular Black English
(also called Ebonics). One of those who acted as an expert witness in support of the
plaintiffs was William Labov. Labov published a retrospective account of the affair,
Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science (1982), which has become a
canonical statement on the social responsibility of linguistic researchers. Cameron et al.
(1993: 201) cite two principles proposed by Labov:
 Error correction: if researchers know that people hold erroneous views on
something, they have a responsibility to attempt to correct those views. Cameron
et al. note that this is a clear example of commitment and objectivity serving
the same ends.
The debt incurred: when a community has enabled linguists to gain important
knowledge, the linguist incurs a debt which must be repaid by using the
knowledge on the communitys behalf when they need it.

In a socioeconomic climate such as is current in the UK, where research funding

councils increasingly call for academic research to have impact outside the ivory
tower,3 it is difficult to avoid linguistic social work, even if we believed that to be
desirable. Heller (2004: 286) notes that researchers can take the position that we have
something important and special to say, something that others with different approaches
to the question might not see, and that in some ways we would even want to qualify as
experts. Even if we do not claim this status, we are often constructed as such by
respondents and by the media. However, this should not lead to hubris. Labov (1982: 27)
stresses that even a researcher who takes an advocacy position serves the community,
and that political direction is the communitys responsibility: they [linguists] dont claim
for themselves the right to speak for the community or make the decision on what forms
of language should be used. This could be said to relate to Newmans position to an
extent, but Heller (2004: 286) observes that we have, by the very fact of arrogating to
ourselves the right to say something on the matter, entered a discursive space as active
participants, a role which carries both rights and obligations. She warns, however, that
this does not necessarily mean that what researchers conclude will be welcome to all
concerned. As noted in Chapter 1, researchers must also not fall into the trap of
totalising endangered language communities. Debates about language policy may not
really be about language, and rhetoric about identity, tradition and heritage may act
as a screen for vested interests in local power struggles.

3.2.2 How critical?

For some years, particularly when writing up my doctoral thesis, I was careful not to
criticise directly anyone involved in endangered language support activities, on the
grounds they have enough problems dealing with opponents of minority-language
maintenance. But I have come to the conclusion that such an uncritical approach does not
always further the cause that language campaigners claim to promote. Inevitably, issues
of ideological clarification arise, concerning effectiveness of measures, accountability
of resources and in Guernsey especially, spelling, which in many speech communities
seems to be both a trigger and a litmus of deep-seated ideological disagreements (see
Sebba 2007). The resolution of such issues often does not depend on impartial
assessment of, for example, which orthography is the most efficient (e.g. in terms of
reflecting the phonemic inventory, as many linguists would suggest), but on community
dynamics which may be fluid and not immediately obvious to outsiders without
extensive ethnographic observation.
It can, however, be difficult to differentiate providing advice and giving something
back to the community from influencing policy, especially given Labovs (1982)
principle of error correction. One danger in such an approach is that the researcher may
be seen as taking sides in debates within the community. Unfortunately, even
documenting or discussing such issues as language change and orthography can lead to
researchers not being seen as neutral. In addition, there may be opposition to washing
dirty linen in public. Hoffman (2006: 144) suggests that

for indigenous groups struggling for recognition and rights, public

acknowledgement of intra-group fractures may be political suicide, but for scholars
it is crucial, albeit absent from the outpouring of attention to endangered languages.

Drawing attention to intra-group conflicts may not be welcome to some community

members, and such issues may therefore affect both the processes and the outcomes of
research. If potential informants and consultants know a researcher is going to publish
critical accounts, they are less likely to participate in research, to share opinions (let
alone private ones) or to allow participant observation. But for evidence-based language
policies, it is crucial to investigate ideologies and perceptions that may hinder the
effectiveness of planning measures (see also Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998; Hinton
and Ahlers 1999; Kroskrity 2000a; Kroskrity and Field 2009). I have come to the
conclusion that it is more ethical for researchers to be open about observations and
conclusions than to discuss such factors only in academic circles and not to share them
with the community.4
As mentioned in Chapter 1, much of the coverage of language endangerment has been
uncritical, characterised by enthusiasm rather than reflection or critical debate. The field
is thus ripe for evaluation and constructive criticism. However, in some critical writing,
a somewhat dismissive and sneering tone seems to be exhibited towards members of
speech and language communities themselves (including language activists). Ironically,
given the rhetoric of the critical approach, actors do not necessarily seem to be
appreciated as having agency and reflexivity themselves. I therefore propose to take
advantage of insights gained from a critical, postmodern approach, from a position
overtly and unashamedly in favour of linguistic diversity (as a linguist), together with (as
a language activist) a desire not to see either my own or others heritage languages
disappear, in order to contribute to effective language planning for revitalisation.

3.3 Language and identity

In some language endangerment literature, a link between language, ethnicity and
identity is often simply assumed and is treated as a given, with little discussion of its
nature, and with a tendency to appeal to emotional responses (e.g. Crystal 2000). The
traditional essentialist view of identity was as fixed: the tendency to posit one aspect of
identity as the sole cause or determinant constituting the social meanings of an
individuals experience (Moya 2000: 3). As noted in Chapter 1 and as will be seen in my
research in Chapter 5, strong views about the role and value of local language as a part of
group or individual identity can be expressed without apparently noticing the irony that
language shift would not happen if speakers attachment to their ancestral language were
really the overriding factor in their identity and the prime motivation in their linguistic
behaviour.
Many recent writers, influenced by postmodernism, see identities not as fixed, formal
realities, but rather as fluid, shaped while people compose and position themselves within
the various social settings of their everyday lives (Heller et al. 1999; Spivak 1999;
Castells 2000; Norton 2000; Pennycook 2001). We can communicate in any language;
and from a purely functional viewpoint, the better known that language is, the easier
communication is. As Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 23940) note, feelings of
ethnic identity can survive total language loss. Dorian (1999: 31) comments, Because it
is only one of an almost infinite variety of potential identity markers, [a language] is
easily replaced by others that are just as effective. In this respect the ancestral language is
functionally expendable.
Linguists claim that all languages are of equal value, capable of being equally
expressive. If it were not for sociolinguistic factors, there would be no reason why one
should not speak any language variety at any time, provided the interlocutor understands.
But of course all ways of speaking are not equal in the real world, so to speak a minority
variety often takes a conscious act of identity in the terms of Le Page and Tabouret-
Keller (1985). Mohanty (2000: 56) claims that even collective identity can be
consciously forged through re-examination of accepted cultural meanings and values,
and personal and political interests. In the context of language shift, such re-examination
could, conceivably, challenge accepted ideologies such as majority language =
progress, as has happened in Wales and the Basque Country in Spain. Nevertheless, as
will be explored in Chapter 5, many of my respondents instinctively feel a close bond
between language and identity.
Bankston and Henry (1998) note that a strong identification with a minority language
may not always correlate positively with language maintenance, particularly when it
comes to transmitting a low-status variety to children. Eastman (1984: 289) asserts that
there is now a strong Irish identity which does not involve the Irish language in a
communicative sense; Irish serves a symbolic function for most people. She highlights
the fallacy of the continuation of the ancestral language as essential for the continuation
of group identity and claims that the main error of the revivalists was to single out
language as the most important marker of identity.
Myhill (1999) warns that the equating of language with identity can undermine efforts
to preserve indigenous languages threatened by what he terms demographic swamping.
As noted in Chapter 2, up to two-thirds of the present populations of the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man have origins outside the islands, especially in the UK; many islanders
blame this influx for the demise of local languages. But the postmodern view conflicts
with the strong identifications which are made by many individuals. Bendle (2002:12)
writes:

There is an inherent contradiction between a valuing of identity as something so

fundamental that it is crucial to personal well-being and collective action, and a
theorisation of identity that sees it as something constructed, fluid, multiple,
impermanent and fragmentary. The contemporary crisis of identity thus expresses
itself as both a crisis of society, and a crisis of theory: The crisis of identity involves
a crisis of identity.

As Wright (2004: 225) states, The strong post-structuralist argument that language is
contingent falls apart when we witness the difficulties that individuals have when they
are forced to shift language. Mohanty (2000: 32) maintains that there is no necessary
opposition between lived experience and scientific thinking: theory-laden and
socially constructed [interpretation of] experiences can lead to a knowledge that is
accurate and reliable (2000: 36). He goes on to define identities as theoretical
constructions that enable us to read the world in specific ways; they are therefore
valuable and their epistemic status should be taken seriously (2000: 43). A purely
functional view of the world, which ignores emotional factors, can thus miss important
information, not to mention the human impact. Jaffe (1999a: 83) points out that the
discourse of scientific rationality can lead to linguistic value being represented as having
an objective, scientific rather than a social basis and being used as a screen for the
symbolic violence wrought by linguistic domination.
In sociolinguistic and anthropological literature, there is little difference between
identity, ethnicity and culture: ethnicity and its allotropes are principles of
collective identification and social organization in terms of culture and history, similarity
and difference (Jenkins 1997: 179). However, the interface (or continuum) is mostly
one-way: although identity is a necessary part of ethnicity, ethnicity is not an essential
feature of identity. Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982: 5) distinguish between an old
ethnicity based on common regional background and social networks which joined
people through clusters of occupational, neighbourhood, familial, and political ties, and
a new ethnicity depending less upon geographic proximity and shared occupations and
more upon the highlighting of key differences separating one group from another. This
latter is very similar to Tajfels (1981: 225) definition of social identity: that part of an
individuals self-concept which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his membership in a
social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to
that membership. It could be said that language shift often accompanies a shift from the
first type of ethnicity, which involves close-knit, multiplex social networks (Milroy 1987,
2002), to the second, which involves looser networks more typical of modern societies.

3.4 Conclusion: linguistic practices, perceptions and ideologies

As well as engaging with the nave perceptions (Cargile and Bradac 2001) and
ideologies of members of endangered language communities, researchers are also
influenced by their own ideologies, which to a certain extent are influenced by the
research communitys own discourses and by fashion in theories. It can be tempting to
follow these to the extent that they influence analysis. For example, Freeland and Patrick
(2004: 8) seem to assume that what speakers believe, or folk ideologies (Nieldzielski
and Preston 2003), will challenge essentialist views of, for instance, language and
identity, and language boundaries; whereas my research indicates that postmodern ideas
on the constructed, fluid nature of languages or identity are not well known among lay
people, so that my respondents tend to have quite traditional, even essentialist, views on
these matters (see Chapter 5). If researchers are to engage with speakers, activists and
language planners, these ideologies themselves need to become the starting point of
research, rather than being dismissed as false consciousness (Gramsci 1971; Lukcs
[1920] 1971). For a researcher, especially an engaged one, this may involve both
challenging and abandoning cherished preconceptions, neat academic theories and
disciplinary ideologies. For many members of endangered language communities, links
between language, culture and identity are subjectively real. More detached researchers
who have not experienced heritage language loss, or worked closely with a community
going through language shift (with all its contradictions), may not appreciate that, as
suggested by Moya (2000: 8), cultural identities can be enabling, enlightening, and
enriching structures of attachment and feeling . . . significant modes by which people
experience, understand, and know the world; what is more, they can feel emancipating
after centuries of denigration. Peoples perceptions, as gleaned from statements, observed
practices and reactions, form a central source of information for researchers into
language endangerment and revitalisation. For policy-makers too, community members
perceptions, orientations and ideologies need to be heeded even when they do not match
the policy-makers own, as policies may not be implementable without taking them into
account.
4 Local language practices on a small island in the
twenty-first century

4.1 Domains of use

4.1.1 Who uses local language: when, where, how and why?
When I started my research in Guernsey in 2000, it was not yet certain that the 2001
census would include a language question, and if so what form it would take. I therefore
conducted my own survey of language use, which at the time was the largest undertaken
there, with ninety-eight respondents, some via postal questionnaires and some face to
face through semi-structured interviews. As discussed in Chapter 3, an ethnographic
approach allowed the questions who speaks what language when, and where (Fishman
1965) to be expanded to how and why, and this combined with my growing language
proficiency enabled me to observe language practices and compare them to self-reports.
As noted in 2.1, from the late Middle Ages until the early twentieth century, French
was the High variety in Guernsey and Jersey in a classic diglossic relationship. The roles
of language varieties in diglossia are ascertained by looking at the domains in which the
variety is used. High domains include government, the judiciary, education, etc. Low
domains include domestic situations, private purposes and phatic communication, and are
associated with the social identity of speakers.
Using Fishmans (1967) extended definition of diglossia to varieties from different
language groups, the relationship between English and the CI Norman languages, and
between Manx and English, until the late twentieth century can also be described as
diglossic. Indeed, the relationship between English, French and the local CI vernaculars
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could be described as triglossic, as
seen in the subtitle of a trilingual collection of poetry, Fantaisie Guernesiaise by George
Mtivier (1866), who is seen by some as Guernseys national poet (Girard 1980):

dans le langage du la langue de la civilisation, et celle du commerce

pays,

[in the local [the language of [and that of

vernacular,] civilisation,] commerce]

(Guernesiais) (French) (English)

 At that time French was seen as the language of civilisation and education, while
English was used increasingly for business transactions. It is notable that even the
national poet calls Guernesiais a langage rather than a langue, reflecting its status as a
patois rather than a full language (see 2.2 and 5.2).
According to the Jersey government website, Jrriais, is traditionally . . . one of les
trais langues the three languages: English, French and Jrriais. If English is the
language of commerce that has come to dominate, and French the formerly dominant
language of the Church and the Chapel, of the Court and of the States, then Jrriais is the
language in which the Islands poetry, stories, scandals and beliefs have been written.1
Hudsons (2002) distinction between diglossia and societal bilingualism is useful in
distinguishing the relationship between Guernesiais/Jrriais and French from that
between Guernesiais/Jrriais and English and between Manx and English. French was
acquired mainly through education and was not widely spoken. Guernesiais/Jrriais and
French coexisted in complementary distribution, and while the local vernaculars had low
status, they were maintained as living languages. However, in all three islands English
expanded its native-speaker base, displacing the local vernaculars. In Hudsons typology
this is typical of societal bilingualism, which is inherently unstable and more likely to
lead to language shift, especially given the deficit ideology fostered by centuries of low
status for the local languages (see Chapter 5). The advent of mass media brought English
into the home, influencing aspirations and lifestyle. Few English speakers learnt the local
languages (although there were some exceptions, especially in country areas). Local
varieties of English grew up in all three islands, which to some extent replaced the local
languages as low-status vernaculars. These were influenced both by local languages and
by the English dialects of immigrants (Moore 1924; Gill 1934; Viereck 1988; Ramisch
1989; Ureland and Broderick 1991; Barb 1995a, 1995b; Broderick 1999; Jones 2002).
These local dialects of English are now declining in use among the younger generations,
and remain low-status, whereas the indigenous languages have increased their status and
desirability, although levels of use remain low.
In the first few interviews I conducted in Guernsey, one of the questions I asked
interviewees was which language they talked to God in, following the example of Gal
(1979), on the assumption that this would be the language they felt emotionally closest
to. The reaction of interviewees was quite negative, and I soon learnt that Guernesiais
was not considered of high enough status for talking to God. The funeral service of
leading language supporter and dictionary compiler Marie de Garis (who died in 2010
aged 101) included no Guernesiais. However, there is an ecumenical church service once
or twice a year in Guernesiais, and the Eisteddfod festival (see below) includes a Bible
reading class. This reflects the importance of religion in the traditional culture of all three
islands, which have similar nonconformist Christian traditions. As will be discussed later
in this chapter and in Chapter 5, the translation of the Bible into Manx and the lack of a
Bible in Jrriais or Guernesiais played an important role in literacy.
In the Channel Islands French was used in education until the early twentieth century,
then English (Crossan 2005). Although some teachers who knew the island languages
helped children, numerous older interviewees reported having unhappy experiences at
school, which led parents to encourage children to speak English, which in turn impacted
on home language practices. Guernesiais and Jrriais were not traditionally used for
functions outside the home and activities such as local shopping and farming. In my
questionnaire speakers reported their most frequent interlocutors in Guernesiais as
parents (when they were alive), followed by spouse and friends. The concept of domain
proved difficult to put over: when asked what sort of things they talked about in
Guernesiais, half of the respondents replied general or anything; twelve said
topical/local news, and five other/non-specific. It appears that the deciding factor is
not so much domain (as proposed by Fishman 1991) or interlocutor (Gal 1979), as type
of speech event or location. English is used for functional events, e.g. commercial and
official transactions. Respondents reported speaking Guernesiais most often at home,
closely followed by friends houses, when meeting friends away from home, at cultural
festivals and at church (usually before or after the service). This and festivals (see below)
provide virtually the only public forums for using Guernesiais. A number of locations in
which Guernesiais could formerly be heard or spoken are disappearing: e.g. on the bus or
at local shops or at market.

A la shoppe, ou dans mon temps shtait tou en guernesiais . . .. aoshtaeirr nennn

l supermarket eh? [laugh] Vous pouva pas vous imagina kyen a l ki sa ki save
l Guernesiais! (GF24)
(At the shop in my time it was all in Guernesiais . . . now no the supermarket eh?
You cant imagine that there are any there who know Guernesiais!)

The agricultural/horticultural work sphere which used to support speakers of

Guernesiais is now greatly reduced, but the language can still be heard at agricultural
shows.

4.1.2 Language domains for maintenance and revitalisation

As mentioned in Chapter 1, it is common for language revitalisation campaigns to focus
on raising the prestige and status of a minority language and thus on widening domains
of use, especially in education. This is an ongoing debate, with authorities such as
Fishman (1988: 400) stressing that family-based language transmission is the most
important domain: Among endangered languages the hemorrhages in the realm of home
and immediate community must be stopped first and quickly. However, as will be
discussed further in Chapter 6, many campaigners focus first and foremost on schools
and the print environment as the main sites of language regeneration.
 Revivalists of a language with a primarily oral tradition, whose domains and
vocabulary are increasingly restricted, are faced with the dilemma of to what extent its
domains can and should be extended to those of modern life, when in the past these
domains were left to a High variety. Attempts such as that of Marquis (1997) to use
Guernesiais in academic writing are not always welcomed by traditionalists and purists
(see Chapter 5), nor by those who do not want to buy into a modernist ideology.
One response to this dilemma is to focus on using the language at social events. In the
Isle of Man these have included meetings in cafs and pubs, a walking group and a
Manx-language school football team. One interviewee commented:

Its amazing to hear. They have coffee mornings and events and things and there are
so many Manx speakers, its amazing to hear and its brilliant. (MA24)

It is necessary to distinguish between activities that would have happened in a

language community anyway, and activities organised specifically for the purpose of
language promotion. Under these we can distinguish in turn between language
maintenance and language revitalisation activities: the former are primarily social events
for members of the traditional speaker community, while the latter are intended to
increase the number of speakers. There is often a difference in age between these two
target groups, as will be discussed in 4.4.
Thus, in the 1990s and early 2000s there was a small community of perhaps a hundred
people in early retirement who used Guernesiais for their entire social life (e.g. card
games, bowls). Some of the men reportedly played football in Guernesiais.

A seis nou sen va joua ei carte euchre sa-tu la gaome? Ta oui la gaome
euchre? Et pi demmoi au saer nou va joua whist oua shena nou fait pour des
charita. (GF11)
(This evening were going to play cards euchre do you know the game? Youve
heard of euchre? And then tomorrow evening were going to play whist yes we do
that for charity.)

For participants in such activities, social and enjoyment elements are an important
motivator:

I decided sort of because I knew we were coming back, I thought Ill enter the
Eisteddfod so I entered it before we actually came back and took part that first year
just in readings and poems really and then I got drawn into the group La Guaine
du Vouest . . . Its a lot of fun when weve been practising a play and as a group of
people we gel very well together and its very we have a lot of laughs you know,
its really good fun. (GF39)
 Two counterpart organisations in Jersey and Guernsey, LAssemblie dJrriais and
LAssembllae dGuernsiais, were founded in the 1950s to support the local languages.
They organise lunches, church services, traditional customs such as la longue veile (the
long vigil, a Christmas tradition) and social evenings in the language with songs and
card games such as whist and beetle (though increasingly fewer of these as members age
and are less willing to go out in the evenings).
In Jersey, traditional events such as making cider and nir beurre (black butter,
boiled pured apples)2 and bachin (copper bowl) ringing3 are re-enacted both for tourists
and to promote interest in traditional culture and language. However, little Jrriais is used
at these events.
It could be argued that social events do not really constitute domain expansion for
vernaculars which were traditionally used among friends and relatives, but for a highly
endangered language which is hardly used in any domains at all, any increased use
constitutes expansion. In addition, if revitalisation focuses on High domains such as
school (Romaine 2006), phatic and domestic language may be omitted.
Costa (forthcoming b) notes that in relation to Bourdieus analogy of the linguistic
market, the value allocated to minority languages is usually very low on unified
(majority-dominated) linguistic markets, but they may receive a higher valuation on
niche markets where they can index a sense of community and solidarity. He suggests
that Occitan, like Yiddish, is a post-vernacular language (Shandler 2006: 1930), where
the communicative functions of language are no longer the primary reasons for its use.

4.1.3 Language-for-performance
This analysis is borne out by the fact that a major domain for island language-related
activities is the performing arts, or language-for-performance. A number of language
supporters in the Isle of Man recounted how their interest in language had been sparked
by traditional Manx or Celtic music. There is an annual Manx activity week called the
Cooish:

The Manx Language Week (Cooish) is one of the key events that showcases the
language. Held every November the week is a [sic] jointly funded by The Heritage
Foundation, The Arts Council and Yn heshaght Ghailckagh. The week offers a
great opportunity for everyone to try and use their Manx. Events are organised that
are suitable for both the beginner and fluent speaker . . . No festival would be
complete without a musical contribution and the Festival has been fortunate to have
the support of some extremely talented musicians from the [sic] around the Celtic
world, not least the Island itself.4

Manx musicians enter the Celtic heats for Liet, an international festival for music in
minority languages from all over Europe.5 The Manx Language Development Officer
(see Chapter 6) offers to translate songs from English in order to widen both participation
and the repertoire of music included. At the heat I observed in November 2008 (during
Cooish week), the final choice was between a rock band and a traditional-style Celtic
ballad. Rather predictably the ballad won the local round, but it did not progress in the
international competition: Organizers do not want the contest to be a folk festival and
encourage original compositions and contemporary styles including rock and hip hop.6
Compared to the rich Celtic musical tradition, there is a relative paucity of traditional
songs in Channel Island indigenous languages (Heaume 1970; Kennedy 1975a, b; Amy
1988; Locke 1998). In the seventeenth century Guernsey and Jersey were ruled by a strict
Puritan theocracy, which imposed heavy penalties for ungodly behaviour such as
dancing, skittle-playing and gossiping on Sundays (Marr 2001). According to folk
tradition, these rules almost wiped out traditional songs and dances (although according
to one Jersey activist more remain in Guernsey than in Jersey). Whatever the truth of this
(especially since there have been several centuries since in which to compose more), it is
certainly the case that most music now sung by language supporters was originally in
French or English. Songs seen as local/traditional are usually found in more than one
Channel Island and in mainland Normandy (Johnson 2008a, 2013). A Guernsey music
promoter interviewed in August 2009 commented, weve not been able to find shanties,
which we should, being a seafaring island, and you think does it exist, is it there?
As noted by Johnson (2011: 115), local-language songs are performed first and
foremost by people who were either raised as first-language speakers (i.e. a minority and
usually older generation) or are language activists who seek to maintain the languages.
In Jersey Several of the categories of songs point to a practice of constructing tradition
by adapting songs with distinct roots from outside Jersey for use in the promotion of
Jrriais (2011: 116). The use of familiar tunes and translations is a common practice
among language revitalisation movements (e.g. in Australia (Amery 2001)), and
members of the group La Guaine du Vouest in Guernsey (see Johnson 2013) sing
delightful adaptations of English-language songs such as My Grandfathers Clock and
Marys Boy Child. However, such tactics have been criticised in some other contexts as
potentially (or subliminally) undermining the worth of indigenous culture by relying on
the dominant culture as the source (Jaffe 1999b). In the Channel Islands, language
festivals provide one of the few opportunities to speak and hear the indigenous languages
publicly. They are attended mainly by traditional speakers (and fulfil an important social
function for increasingly elderly and isolated speakers), but also by tourists (summer
festivals), friends and relatives of performers, and other interested members of the public.
The festivals include recitals of poems and short stories, songs, short sketches and plays.
They are also an opportunity for creative writing in Guernesiais and Jrriais, although the
majority of performances are of traditional pieces.
The two major language-related festivals in the Channel Islands are the Jersey and
Guernsey Eisteddfods7 and the Fte dla Vieille Langue Normande (also known as La
Fte Nouormande or La Fte des Rouaisons8), hosted in turn by associations in
Guernsey, Jersey and mainland Normandy (Johnson 2008b). Guernsey and Jersey each
have an Eisteddfod Society, which organises annual festivals of creative and performing
arts.9 The Guernesiais section was in abeyance from the Second World War until the
1980s, but since 2000 has expanded from one evening to two evenings and an afternoon.
In both islands there has been an increase in participation from learners, particularly
school-age children: chiefly in choral groups from schools, but increasingly giving
individual performances. However, the classes of entry cater primarily for native
speakers, so that learners or latent speakers who have won the intermediate
(elementary) class several times have to compete against native speakers in the Classe
Suprieure.
The Eisteddfod and other performance-focused events increase the visibility/audibility
of the island languages, both to the immediate audience and more widely through media
coverage. They allow speakers to express pride in their languages, which is important for
personal confidence as well as awareness-raising and prestige. However, the festivals do
little to further day-to-day use of the local languages. When I started participant
observation at the Guernsey-French Eisteddfod in 2002, all announcements and
adjudication took place in Guernesiais. However, entrants and supporters (and even
adjudicators) are less and less fluent, so adjudicators have started using English, first for
beginners and children and recently for the whole event. The same trend can also be seen
in language-interest groups.
Henry and Bankston (1999: 241) describe the effect of increased emphasis on Acadian
heritage in Louisiana as follows:

The linguistic criterion is thus removed from its objective basis, that is whether
people actually know or speak the language. This conceptualization of ethnic
identity allows the language to remain at the center of Cajun self-identification
despite our observations of its declining use.

There are strong parallels with the Channel Island situation. There is a risk that
performance may even take the place of day-to-day use, to the extent that performance is
becoming a goal in itself. Heinrich (2005: 69) describes a similar situation with regard to
reversing language shift activities in the Ryuku Islands, Japan:

Fishmans (1991: 91) description of reversing language shift activities which can
frequently be found at stage 7 also reflects the situation in the Ryukyu Islands, in
that (1) symbolic use of the language prevails (e.g. in speech contests, arts,
entertainment, etc.), (2) activities often focus on the interests of older speakers, and
(3) the means of reversing language shift (e.g. speech contests) are frequently taken
to be the end of language revitalisation.
 Heinrich (2005: 69) warns that:

Reversing language shift activities which display such characteristics are

insufficient, in the Ryukyu Islands as anywhere else. It is therefore likely that
Ryukyuan will further regress unless new reversing language shift measures are
implemented in addition . . . Rather than providing for yet more instances of
symbolic language use, reversing language shift activities have to focus on the
private domain, that is to say on language use in families and neighbourhoods. More
than anything else, reversing language shift activities have to create a basis for
intergenerational language transmission. As an effect, reversing language shift
schemes must change their focus from older speakers towards younger people not
(sufficiently) proficient in Ryukyuan.

However, it seems that language use in families and neighbourhoods is the hardest
thing to activate in an endangered language. As can be observed in lessons and
performances, it is easier for learners, latent speakers and those who use a language
infrequently to cope with controlled, predictable language. Some speakers whose
performance in language festivals is strong in terms of perceived correctness, or who
teach in the extra-curricular sessions discussed in Chapter 6, lack the confidence or
proficiency to speak Guernesiais and Jrriais in their everyday life, or to transmit them to
their own children. Even people who win prizes cannot always hold a conversation in the
languages. One commented by email:

Taking part in the eisteddfod is perhaps a false indication as to my capabilities

because I learn it. Then, over a period of time, I have forgotten it. Shame really.
(GF42)

Preparation for such events becomes a major activity in itself, for example in schools
(where it takes up a large proportion of language lesson time at certain times of the year).
In some cases such preparations can stimulate language use: in the Isle of Man Cooish
planning meetings are usually held in Manx. In addition, collaboratively writing or
adapting an original piece for a festival can involve what second language acquisition
researchers call negotiation of meaning (Lightbown and Spada 2006). In the following
excerpt an interviewee recounts adapting an English play by Agatha Christie for the
Guernsey Eisteddfod:

Weve got a bit in the play where the postmans delivered letters earlier in the day
and comes back later . . . and we had quite a lot of argument about which one
[tense] should it be you know, and some people were saying well you know I think
it ought to be that because jy ai dounna was sort of more recent than jy dounni
you know it sounded a long while away.10 (GF39)
 With regard to genre, Watson (1989: 49) warns that Scottish and Irish Gaelic are
associated with an unsophisticated, non-learnt folk culture; enthusiast groups tend to
concentrate on folk songs and dance, poetry, traditional tales and comic plays as tangible
ways of expressing their attachment to the language. Johnson (2008a, 2010) notes that at
festivals Jrriais is foregrounded through song as a way of maintaining and developing
identity (2008a: 73).
The cultural focus at the Channel Island festivals follows this trend, harking back to a
bygone age, with many competitors wearing old-fashioned clothes. They cater to the
tastes of older participants (traditional speakers) and audience members (despite the
increased participation of children), with the implication (which was stated overtly by the
2011 Guernsey-French Eisteddfod adjudicator) that Guernesiais is also bygone: the
language of our youth (see 5.4.2). However, some language activists would prefer to get
away from what they view as folklorisation (Fishman (1987), cited by Crystal (2000:
83)) or hypertraditionalising language practices (Wilkins 2000), which, as pointed out by
Johnson (2008a, b), may actually be reinvented traditions rather than authentic ones.
According to some of my teenage and young adult informants, the focus on tradition,
old-fashioned costumes and the association of language with nostalgia actively put off
potential learners.
The Sark Folk Festival attracts a significantly younger audience, and includes classes
in Guernesiais and Jrriais; in 2012 a song was written in Guernesiais for the occasion.11
A group called Badlabecques (Chatterboxes) in Jersey similarly aims to make Jrriais
language and musical traditions attractive to a younger audience. The founder, Kit Aston,
writes:

Badlabecques are my brand new Jersey-based 8 piece pop folk band who sing in our
indigenous language Jrriais. Founded by yours truly in collaboration with
LOffice de Jrriais, we are attempting to breathe new life into traditional folk songs
with upbeat pop and folk influences from around the world. Its exciting, quirky,
danceable Jrriais magic!12

4.1.4 Endangered languages in new domains

UNESCOs (2003c) vitality scale includes Response to New Domains and Media as a
factor in gauging the health of an endangered language: If the communities do not meet
the challenges of modernity with their language, it becomes increasingly irrelevant and
stigmatized (2003: 11). The expansion of endangered languages into non-traditional
domains fulfils an important symbolic function and challenges the traditional ideologies
and associations of endangered languages with labels such as outdated and
backward (Moriarty 2011: 447).
Although there is little presence of the local languages on television or radio (see
Chapter 6), bottom-up broadcasting and social networking are providing increasing
opportunities for minority languages to be seen and heard outside traditional domains.
Audio and video material is being added daily, for example YouTube channels for each
islands language, presenting video lessons, archived and new audio material.13
The expansion of local languages into digital domains is hampered by the lack of
fluent younger users. LOffice du Jrriais obtained funding from the European Year of
Languages in 2001 to establish a major web presence, with over 3,000 pages of literature
and grammar in Jrriais.14 The Facebook interface has also been translated into Jrriais.15
However, it is unclear to what extent these resources are used, as in both Jersey and
Guernsey, most fluent speakers are elderly and do not use electronic media, while the
majority of learners are not proficient enough to read literature in Jrriais (see Chapter 6).
Nevertheless, the availability of written texts, audio and video means that learners can
access them repeatedly and process them at their own speed. LOffice du Jrriais also
maintains a website and blog aimed at learners in English and Jrriais,16 which is
frequently updated and includes topical notes and vocabulary, links to revitalisation
measures for other languages (including Manx pre-schools), and information on learning
materials, language classes and using Jrriais. However, at the time of writing the
information under this last heading does not give information on where Jrriais might be
heard or spoken, but instead gives examples of Jrriais in the linguistic landscape.
Twitter may offer a way both to promote minority languages in a new domain, and to
encourage new speakers and learners to express themselves in a way that is less
challenging than either unprepared conversation or participation in festivals. A short
piece of text can be composed and edited before being sent to a generally supportive
group of followers. Although the tweet is public, the user is not directly exposed to a
face-to-face audience. Badlabecques Twitter posts17 include some Jrriais, and in
Guernsey too some language learners have started using Guernesiais as part of their
tweeting repertoire.18 As in most aspects of language revitalisation, the Isle of Man is
ahead of the Channel Islands in electronic media,19 but most Manx-language tweets still
appear to come from the Manx Language Officer.
However, as in many languages, there is some resistance to the perceived effects of
electronic media on the quality of language usage. This is related to the discussion of the
role of writing later in this chapter, as well as to debates regarding language development
and change and the best ways to increase speaker numbers (see Chapters 5 and 6). A
Guernsey interviewee commented:

I mean texts youre losing English because of texts . . . Thats just going to destroy
the language if they start doing that. Youre going to lose the language. The
language is changing all the time . . . I would rather see lessons and things. Id like
to see a website. A proper website where people can click and learn and listen. Not
poems. People wont learn from poems . . . (GF04)
 Most traditional speakers of endangered languages are not internet users, but for many
younger people (whose age profile increases steadily), online communication is a
fundamental part of their life. In Sallabank (2010a) I discussed how social networks
(Milroy 1987; Milroy 2002; Lanza and Svendsen 2007) are important in maintaining and
developing language fluency. Might online social networking become a new component
of multiplex social networks? Lanza and Svendsen (2007: 279) note:

Through telephone calls and e-mail and SMS messages, people may in an effective
manner and at relatively low prices maintain contact with family, friends, and
significant others across long distances. Hence dispersed migrant populations are no
longer separated from their homelands by vast oceans and political barriers.

Language maintenance and revitalisation can be supported by virtual libraries and

learning environments, Facebook pages for activists, discussion lists, blogs, etc., with
online opportunities for speaking as well as writing (e.g. via Skype). Although such
activities as blogging and texting in an endangered language are easily dismissed by
older community members (I dont do that in any language), they can help to motivate
younger learners and to (re)build communities of speakers (cf. Holton (2009) with regard
to an endangered language community in Alaska, discussed in 5.4.1).

4.1.5 Language and humour

As part of the tendency towards folklorisation discussed above, traditionally local
languages seem to be perceived as an appropriate language to make jokes in, as well as to
make jokes about. As well as covert denigration, this can be seen as an expression of
affective attachment to the language, and also as revalidation of its expressiveness.
Dorian (1981: 778) observed that humorous functions were either reserved to Gaelic,
or at least preferred in Gaelic:

But as I said to you before, if you were speaking Gaelic, well, you would enjoy it
better. If there was other ones in company that understood it. Because you could say
something that would make the company laugh. Because, you know, its got that
much about it, that if you were telling a joke, youd enjoy it far better than telling it
in English. [Brora bilingual, 1972]

This was echoed by some Guernsey informants:

You cant talk about serious things in patois. (GE28)

Its easier to laugh in Guernsey French than any other language. (GF10)

Several Guernsey writers and Guernesiais speakers place importance on the

untranslatability of humour from Guernesiais into English (e.g. Le Huray 1969: 180; Hill
2000: 2).

I do believe the language is important because if you can joke in a language then
youve really understood the culture I think . . . You cant literally translate some
things, you cant they dont work, you have to have to know the people, you have to
know how it works, you have to know the sense of humour, you have to understand
that in order for it to really work properly. (AQ112)
My husbands English and he doesnt understand the Guernsey French but he loves
listening to it and he always said there are a lot of Guernsey phrases and Guernsey
jokes and just the sense of humour he said, it wouldnt sound funny in English if
you said those things, you know there wouldnt be any humour in it, people would
just look at you and think thats stupid, and yet there are so many phrases and just
words he said oh I love the sound of that word you know, its funny. (GF39)

Carter and McCarthy (2004) claim that creative language use, including humour and
punning, is an important element of phatic communication and interpersonal
relationships, and plays a significant role in the construction of identities. The majority of
pieces presented at cultural festivals involve what is perceived as a peculiarly Guernsey
brand of humour, which some describe as earthy but which can also be anarchic and
almost surreal. This earthiness is also an example of the solidarity value often
associated with minority language varieties (Ryan 1979; Milroy 1982; Hoare and
Coveney 2000; Eggington 2001). It also reflects the fact that in the past Guernesiais was
seen as a low-status peasant dialect, and its associations with agriculture. Several
speakers report being called country bumpkins: a stereotyped insult is you come from
the country you.
As noted by Davies (1987: 39), language is one of the most important factors
determining the identity of both jokes and butts in defining the relationship between them
. . . joke-tellers perceptions of butts speech is shaped by social and political forces.
Being the butt of jokes reflects the status of a language: a low-status language is
portrayed as the language of buffoons. Utterances pronounced with an exaggerated
Guernsey or Jersey accent are intended to make fun of old-fashioned ways; likewise the
addition of cor damme ah but yes at the end of a statement or thats a long way to push
a wheelbarrow. Davies (1987: 50) comments:

Joke tellers perceive the speech of butts as low and old-fashioned . . . An ethnic
group labelled comically stupid on the basis of cultural position and pattern of
speech will be the butt of jokes both about the amusing quality of their defective
manner of speaking and about alleged inability to master the material world.

By reclaiming humour as the domain of the minority language, speakers can turn
the tables on those who previously used humour to denigrate it and also express
solidarity with each other and their language.

Nou joue bowls et nou se dvise, nou vei dei gen l qunou se counni en
guernesiais et lonna passa ya aen haoume qui dit huh, that foreign language!
You come from the country et jli di yes, and all our rubbish goes down the Vale!
(We play bowls and we speak to each other, we see people there we know in
Guernsey French and last year there was a man who said huh, that foreign
language! You come from the country and I told him yes, and all our rubbish goes
down the Vale!)20 (GF11)

As noted by Jaffe (2000), performers of comedy can make use of bilingual repertoires
to revalidate socially stigmatised codes, competences and identities by evoking an
expert bilingual audience. Labrador (2004) suggests that The linguistic practices in the
comedy performances are thus identity acts that help to produce and disseminate ideas
about language, culture, and identity while normalizing [the] Local.

4.2 Language variation

In the Channel Islands it is still possible to tell which part of an island a native speaker
comes from, to within a mile or so. Such variation is typical of endangered and minority
languages without a prestige standard (Dorian 1994b). Although it can be perceived as a
deficit, especially when it comes to official recognition and producing learning and
teaching materials, regional variation (or stereotyped perceptions of iconic variants) is
also a core value for many speakers (Sallabank 2010b; Marquis and Sallabank 2013,
forthcoming).
In Manx, little of the original regional variation remains; the last documented speakers
were from the south-west of the island. Nevertheless, according to Marie Clague from
the Centre for Manx Studies at the University of Liverpool (personal communication, 11
November 2008), there is more variation than might be expected, as teachers have
preferences which they pass on to learners. Some new speakers I interviewed claim to
speak with a Northern accent.
In Jersey, an interviewee commented on regional variation:

The problem of course is I come from the west and [B]s from the east and weve
got lots of words which are completely different, and pronunciation . . . he talks of
when hes hot fait-i caud /fe ti ko/ fait-i caou! /k/ and I would say fatty cow?
Thats a big fat cow! But fait-i caud /kou/ from the other side . . . and ieau /jo/ for
water and they say /j/ I cant say iaou caoude and I say /jo koud/ like a code
<code> [spelled out]
 The same phenomenon is found in Guernsey, except that the geographical direction is
reversed in that // is used more in the West:

[A] li dmeurait justement chu bord-l Sant Pierre et ouque jdi m dieau bioque
dmeurais l et [A] dmeurait l jdi dieau et i di diaou . . . pour la mnque d aen
mile.
([A] lived just over there at St Peters and whereas I say /jo/ [water] although I lived
here and [A] lived there I say /jo/ and he says /j/ for the want of one mile.)

This particular regional variant, /o/~//, is one of the most frequently cited by
speakers, which illustrates its iconic value in perceptions of regional variation as a core
feature of the island ways of speaking. Yet this folk linguistic perception by no means
represents the full range of variation found in recent recordings of native speakers in
Guernsey. A similar phenomenon was found in documentation of traditional Manx:

theres an enormous variety in pronunciation have you seen the book by George
Broderick? He gives the pronunciation of all the native speakers in phonetic script
the different pronunciations that were collected from all these different individuals
and the variety is staggering its quite horrifying really because you think well
how on earth should I pronounce this?. . . I suppose a lot of the people were quite
isolated so they werent hearing anybody else.

The idiolectal variation referred to here is reflected in the language documentation that
Marquis and I are carrying out in Guernsey, which is revealing unexpectedly rich
variation among speakers, which does not necessarily correlate with region, age or
language contact but might be due to increased isolation of speakers (Sallabank 2010a;
see also later in this chapter, and Marquis and Sallabank 2013).
The highly proficient new speaker of Manx quoted above expresses a concern
common to many non-native speakers and latent speakers of minority languages, where
there is no prestige standard variety and few opportunities to interact with fluent native
speaker elders. Until recently it was usual for such speakers or learners to refer to the
older generation as the authorities on correct usage. A Guernsey latent speaker remarked:

We havent got parents now to start with who do we go and ask you know because
I would have asked Mum and well there was always Dad before but you know
sort of oh how dyou say this? Is it like this or is it like that?

As older generations pass away, people are tending to turn more to written resources
such as dictionaries and grammars. This in itself can cause problems in Guernsey, where
such materials are not necessarily based on a reliable corpus of language in use and
contain inconsistencies or even errors. The same interviewee also noted that acceptance
of regional variation implies a lack of a canonical correct way of speaking:

Dad was from down by Richmond and I know once I was learning a recitation and
I said a word a certain way and Mum said to me no, thats not right. Oh, I said, I
thought thats what Dad would say. No you say it like this, so then of course later
on he came along and I was doing it again and he said oh thats not well thats
what Mum said so then she was there so then they said ah yeah then they
realised oh yeah so they said say it the way you want!

Respect for variation is thus combined with a generally accepted perception that
Guernesiais and Jrriais are distinct languages. In this respect they fulfil the definition of
a polynomic language (langue polynomique) as defined by Marcellesi (1983, 1986), a
pluralistic model of language. Marcellesi originally developed the concept with regard to
his own Corsican and later extended it to other minority language varieties (Chiorboli
1990). Marcellesi defines it as follows:

Une langue polynomique est une langue lunit abstraite, auxquels [sic] les
utilisateurs reconnaissent plusieurs modalits dexistence, toutes galement tolres
sans quil y ait entre elles hirarchisation ou spcialisation de fonction. Elle
saccompagne de lintertolrance entre utilisateurs de varits diffrentes sur les
plans phontiques et morphologiques, de mme que la multiplicit lexicale est
conue ailleurs comme un lment de richesse (Marcellesi 1986).21
(A polynomic language is a language whose unity is abstract, and which is
recognised by users as existing in several forms, each tolerated equally without
hierarchical or functional distinctions. It is characterised by mutual acceptance of
phonological and morphological variation by users of different varieties; likewise,
lexical variety is seen as a source of richness [my translation].)

As I note in Sallabank (2010b), the key difference between this and a diglossic model
lies in its rejection of hierarchies and functional distinctions; it thus has much in common
with Mhlhuslers (2000) ecological approach to language planning. The criterion for
language is sociolinguistic, rather than using objective linguistic distinctions between
language and dialect: it relies entirely on the perception of speakers that they speak
the same language within mutually agreed limits, within which no regional variety is
privileged over others. Implications for language planning are discussed in Chapter 6.
As well as regional variation, endangered languages are characterised by widely
varying levels of fluency among speakers (Dorian 1989; Grinevald and Bert 2011),
frequent use of code-switching, and convergence with and influence from the dominant
language(s). Both language-internal and contact-influenced language change are
common (e.g. Mhlhusler 1974; Trudgill 1983; Schmidt 1985; Dorian 1989; Grenoble
and Whaley 1998; Nettle and Romaine 2000). Jones (2001, 2002) documents this process
in Jrriais and Guernesiais, and Broderick (1984, 1986, 1991, 1999) for Manx. Although
some speakers recognise that their own usage is not as fluent as it used to be (Broderick
1999: 6; Sallabank 2010a; see 4.3), this is often seen as decline and as undesirable, rather
than as natural change. It seems that endangered language community members are more
willing to accept regional variation (at least at an iconic level) than language change or
convergence (Jaffe 2008). Such issues have come to the fore in my research in Guernsey,
as will be discussed in Chapter 5 and below.

4.3 Attrition
As noted above, Guernesiais and Jrriais are no longer being passed on to children in the
family, and the majority of fluent speakers are aged over seventy-five.22 Inevitably, as
the speaker base ages, interlocutors (relatives and friends) pass away. Speakers become
housebound and unable to visit friends, or are obliged to move to old peoples homes. As
I discuss in Sallabank (2010a), numerous consultants have reported having few or no
opportunities to speak Guernesiais nowadays.

Chest pas souvent que jdevise en Guernesiais pasque ya pas grndment d gen qui
l devise aoshtaeirr, chest pu lei viarr coum m. (GF36)
(I dont speak in Guernesiais often because there arent a lot of people who speak it
now, its more old people like me.)
I dont speak it as often now as when my brother who died two years ago we
spoke it er all the time and now I dont have er its only when I meet friends
who do speak it that I speak it that I speak it, because I dont actually speak it at
home because my wife speaks English you see. (GF13)

One consultant commented after a recording session:

Ive spoken more Guernesiais in the last two hours than I have in the last year.
(GF45)

Lack of practice can lead to lexical erosion, and a furthering of language contact and
code-copying effects (Johansson 2002). Some informants report that English comes more
easily now. The longer the isolation continues, the more of the language they forget, and
consequently they feel less confident when an opportunity does arise.
Since I started researching Guernesiais in 2000, I have witnessed a clear reduction in
the fluency of several consultants, in the complexity of the constructions used in their
speech, and in their ability to remember terms and to distinguish Guernesiais from
French. Increasingly they insert English terms for which there are well-known traditional
Guernesiais equivalents.23 I have even had consultants asking me for words.
 Attrition is recognised as a problem by informants themselves. Seventeen of twenty-
six questionnaire respondents who gave their first language as Guernesiais reported
speaking it less well than when younger, plus five of the ten who stated that they had
been bilingual from infancy. Only eight native speakers reported no attrition. Many
interviewees reported becoming rusty, which several attributed to lack of interlocutors.

Because its in my background I feel patois is more expressive but you need to use it
all the time or lose it. I have very few opportunities to use it now . . . Since my
husband died Im finding it more difficult to stay fluent. (GF27)
Its difficult when you dont speak it a lot, youve got to think yourself through it
pasque na pas lchnce d pala autchun avec la maeme langue24 (because
theres no opportunity to speak to anyone with the same language). (GF20)
Ive had nobody to speak it to since my mother died in 1995. (GF9)
I could speak to you in patois all the time but its easier for me to be more fluent in
what Im trying to say and quicker I dont have to think about what I should do,
thats why I speak to you in English. (GF4)

Even in areas where Guernesiais is spoken most, people assume that people under
sixty are unlikely to speak it, and so speakers are unlikely to address them in that
language. Younger learners therefore find few opportunities to practise (and may receive
shocked reactions when they do speak Guernesiais or Jrriais). Lack of interlocutors is
also an obstacle to language-in-education projects and attempts to revive
intergenerational transmission. One native speaker reported offering to teach Guernesiais
to her granddaughter, who replied Who would I speak it to?
Some traditional speakers recognise that it is important to consciously maintain their
fluency and seek/make opportunities to interact with fellow speakers for this reason, e.g.
playing bowls or joining language associations (see above). Some also recognise that
learners face even greater challenges:

Ive certainly lost some words. I was thinking about the [agricultural] show and
different veg and I still havent recalled the word for leeks . . . So if its difficult for
us whove got it all up there, its just not coming to the surface [then] for those
who didnt learn it like us, if were climbing hills, theyre climbing mountains . . .
(GF38)

4.4 New speakers for old?

As noted in Chapter 1, a key aim of language revitalisation is to increase the relative
number of speakers of a language and extend the domains where it is employed
(Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 13). In the Channel Islands a pressing problem for language
revitalisation is the lack of new speakers progressing beyond beginner level. There are
many contributing factors, which will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. One advantage
that the Channel Islands have over the Isle of Man, however, is that there is still a pool of
native speakers, of varying levels of language ability and confidence.25 Some Manx
language activists envy the Channel Islands for this. Yet the very fact that all Manx
speakers are new speakers (see 5.4) can be argued to give them more confidence or
incentive to express themselves through Manx. Two relative newcomers to the Isle of
Man commented:

MA6: The thing I notice is more and more people speaking to each other in Manx.
Maybe thats because people now speak to you in Manx but certainly over
the eight years weve been here theres more Manx being spoken.
MA7: It seems to be but it could just be that were in with the cultural swing if you
like.

In contrast, a learner of Jrriais complained:

We dont get enough chance to use it [Jrriais] really even my in-laws they will
help me and they will use one or two words and Im not in the position yet to hold a
long conversation theres a curious reluctance on the part of a lot of Jrriais
speakers to use it in general or more widely they will amongst themselves.

The decrease in the amount of Guernesiais in the aural environment is also a hindrance
to people trying to learn it:

Weve got Marie de Gariss books and stuff like that but you know, so I refer to
those and its trying to grasp some of the words but its the fact that the language
itself is fading out youre not exposed to it as much and as a consequence of
that you know you dont really hear as much of it so you dont pick up as much.
(AQ166)

There seems to be considerably more confidence among Manx speakers to use Manx
among themselves and with learners; some told me that they had never heard certain
others speaking English, as they always addressed each other in Manx. A Manx teacher
remarked that once learners got to an adequate level of proficiency, he only spoke to
them in Manx. In Jersey the Language Officers took a decision several years ago to use
Jrriais as the main language when in their office, which they report has increased their
fluency. The main stumbling block is finding interlocutors: when I told Jersey informants
that a core of proficient enthusiasts had learnt Manx and kept it alive after the death of
the last traditional speakers, even using it with their children, the reply was how did they
learn it? A long-standing supporter of Manx answered as follows:

MA8: Ive always been a member of Yn heshaght Ghailckagh Manx language

 society. And we did actually set up a northern branch of that maybe 30 years
ago now
INTERVIEWER: So presumably you speak Manx and you spoke Manx then?
MA8: Yes. Ive been learning Manx for forty years now
INTERVIEWERH: How did you learn it in the first place?
MA8: Through speaking to speakers basically.

This contrasts with the focus of most language revitalisation programmes on formal
education (Romaine 2006). In Sallabank (2010a) I discuss potential ways of encouraging
interaction as a basis for individual and group language maintenance as part of language
planning. Language campaigners often bemoan the failure to transform understanding of
a language (latent speaking in the terms of Basham and Fathman (2008), or
competence in language acquisition terminology (e.g. Scovel 1998) into active use
(performance in language acquisition terminology), but to do so needs careful
encouragement and support. Several informants have told me that they do not have the
confidence to speak spontaneously in their heritage language, even to their own family
as with performance, this is a reason why many prefer to pass on the language in the
relatively predictable environment of a classroom. In an article in a local newspaper in a
series written by members of Les Ravigotteurs (The Revitalisers), a Guernsey language
activist group, Le Cheminant (2001) commented on the 2001 Guernsey census results,
which had just been published:

Jveur faire aen pllaid es seonnes qui lcaomprend l guernsiais ioque aen ptit. . . .
Vous counnite tous au moins quenne persaonne qui dvise la langue bian. Quand
vous la les veis, fait saeure quil vous dvise en guernsiais. Et fait vottes mux de les
repounar en patois tous. Vous frat des maques sans doute, mais iy pas dsouin,
vous ttes pratichet tchique chause quest importante assar de garder envie.
Chest vottes hritage opres tous.26
(I do want to make a plea, though, to those who understand the language just a little
. . . You will all know at least one person who can speak the language very well.
Whenever you meet, please ask him or her to speak to you in patois and in return,
please try to respond in kind. Although you are bound to make some mistakes, the
main thing to remember is that you are practising keeping a valuable treasure alive.
It is your heritage after all.)

Some learners complain, however, that traditional or fluent speakers will not talk to
them in Guernesiais/Jrriais/Manx; more than one felt that there was reluctance to share
the language. This may be partly due to the polite tendency to shift to English in the
presence of monolingual or younger Anglophones, and partly because speakers feel they
are helping learners by making themselves more comprehensible by speaking English
(or French). For some traditional speakers of Guernesiais, the notion that anyone would
make efforts to learn such a low-status language variety is difficult to comprehend.
If people continue speaking the minority language when non-speakers are present, it
can both motivate learners and provide exposure. A thirty-year-old man reported that
when working in a local shop as a teenager he had been intrigued by conversations
between his older colleagues and customers, which had motivated him to attend evening
classes.
In Jersey and Guernsey language planning and revitalisation measures have not yet
succeeded in replenishing the loss of traditional speakers with new speakers beyond
beginner level. In the Isle of Man, however, all the current speakers are new given the
break in intergenerational transmission. Intergenerational transmission is also being re-
established: some new speakers are teaching Manx to children in their families, which
has been a feature of the revitalisation movement there since the late 1970s. A
tremendous amount has been achieved through the commitment of key activists and a
systematic approach to teaching (see Chapter 5). However, the Language Officers
recognise that the number of highly competent speakers is still small and that there is no
room for complacency.

4.5 Writing and reading in an endangered language

As with many low-status vernaculars, speakers of the indigenous vernaculars of all three
islands were largely illiterate until the advent of widespread literacy programmes. The
island languages remained largely oral until the eighteenth century and are still written
by relatively few people. This section will focus on local literacy practices, while notions
of correctness and purism will be discussed in Chapter 5, and policy issues surrounding
standardisation in Chapter 6.
Norman was a major literary language in the early Middle Ages, before the expansion
of Parisian French (Guillemin 1985): works include La Chanson de Roland (Bdier
1968), Le Roman de Rou and Le Roman de Brut by the Jerseyman Wace (Pluquet 1827;
Lepelley 1987), and over twenty other works listed by Menger (1904) and Ellis and mac
a Ghobhainn (1971). Lsch (2000: 48) observes that after Waces monumental works,
little use was found for documents in Channel Island vernaculars until the nineteenth
century, although the Norman of the twelfth century (both in mainland Normandy and
Anglo-Norman in England) and Picard of the thirteenth century could have served as
models.
In the nineteenth-century Romantic revival of interest in local vernaculars and
folklore, Guernesiais was the first Norman variety to be written again (Collge des Pieux
2000). This mainly took the form of collections of poetry (e.g. by Mtivier 1831, 1843,
1866; Corbet 1871; Lenfestey 1875, 1883; Corbet 1884; Mahy 1922) and unpublished
work by several others. Mtiviers writing was so popular that pirated and unauthorised
versions were produced (Girard 1980). Poetry is still a genre favoured by writers who
feel motivated to write in their heritage language (e.g. Jehan 1999, plus numerous
unpublished examples), as are humorous tales (e.g. Hill 2000) and plays, especially
comic ones. Lebarbenchon (1980, 1988) criticised comic prose writers for demeaning
local vernaculars, claiming that poetry elevates a language variety. Yet pieces which
express the local sense of humour are more appreciated by traditional speakers at cultural
events in the Channel Islands (see above): this might reflect hypertraditionalising
tendencies, a preference for the traditional domestic domains of local languages, or
lowbrow vs. highbrow tastes (popular novels outsell poetry in English), or changing
fashions (Mtiviers poetry is often sentimental in the Victorian style).
Barton and Hamilton (1998) distinguish six categories of literacy as social practice.
An analysis of literacy practices according to this framework, shown in Table 4.1,
illustrates the dominance of English in most literacy domains among traditional speakers
of Guernesiais. I have added a seventh category, Display/revitalisation, as cultural
festivals such as the Eisteddfod play a large role in Guernsey cultural life (not only with
regard to maintenance of Guernesiais: the festival also includes French, English, art,
crafts and musical recitals), and written pieces are produced (or translated) for this
purpose (although fewer new pieces are being written as the number of fluent speakers
dwindles). This demonstrates a role for local language as a display of symbolic
ethnicity (Henry and Bankston 1999; Bankston and Henry 2000; see also Chapter 5).
Although spoken Guernesiais is used mainly for personal communication with friends
and relatives, it was traditionally hardly ever used in written personal communications
such as letters. Traditional literacy practices are thus at odds with oral ones in that spoken
Guernesiais is largely used for personal (phatic or affective) communication.

Table 4.1 Literacy practices among traditional Guernesiais speakers

Type of literacy
Examples Language
practice

1. Organising life Appointment English

diaries, shopping
lists

2. Personal Letters, greetings Mainly English (with a few

communication cards, emails, exceptions)
notes

3. Private leisure Reading for Mainly English but some

pleasure Guernesiais, especially poetry
Writing for (identity expression)
 pleasure

4. Documenting life Personal records, Mainly English; occasionally

e.g. school some Guernesiais for privacy
reports, diaries
(journals), recipes,
etc.

5. Sense making School, reference Mainly English but some

books, Internet; reference to Guernesiais
religious dictionary
instruction

6. Social Newsletters, English in wider society, but

participation reports of language support associations
meetings encourage the use of
Guernesiais in newsletters

7. Festival Guernesiais, English (some

Display/revitalisation performance French and Portuguese)
pieces, media
items

The categories in Table 4.1 were established by Barton and Hamilton (1998) before
the widespread use of online social media, which have blurred the distinction between
personal and public writing to an extent. As noted above, some new speakers, learners
and teachers are writing in endangered languages consciously to show that they can be
used for non-traditional domains (see also Marquis 1997). More proficient new users also
routinely use these languages for communication by email, texting and also, in the Isle of
Man, for business meetings held in the language (e.g. a committee of the Manx Heritage
Foundation, MHF, a quasi-governmental organisation, on broadcasting in Manx).
Table 4.1 does not distinguish explicitly between reading and writing, although
implicitly some categories are more likely to involve one or the other, for example
keeping a diary involves writing usually just for oneself, while sense making involves
reading a published reference source. Traditional Guernesiais literacy tends to involve
writing more than reading, largely due to the lack of published works available. The
Internet and digital publication have made it easier to overcome the cost barrier to
publishing in a minority language, but as noted earlier, traditional speakers tend not to be
users of digital media. Lsch (2000: 56) notes that strong motivation is needed to write in
a local language because the circle of recipients is limited. Increased availability of
reading materials might encourage maintenance and learning. But the market for print
publications is small, and they need subsidies to be viable. Some funding is available
from government sources (e.g. the Culture and Leisure Department in Guernsey,
LOffice du Jrriais in Jersey) and charitable foundations such as the MHF (which also
receives government funding). Versions of Alice in Wonderland were published in Manx
in 2006 and Jrriais in 2012, and the MHF is publishing a series of readers for adult
learners translated from Irish, as well as Manx versions of childrens books such as The
Gruffalo. Two original novels have been published in Manx, by Brian Stowell and Chris
Lewin. However, because of funding shortages some Manx materials are only published
electronically, e.g. school readers. In Guernsey, La Socit Guernesiaise publishes a few
works (e.g. De Garis 1982; Hill 2000), or authors and friends pay for printing themselves
(e.g. Jehan 1999). Jimmain va la Banque (Jimmy goes to the beach), a childrens book
published by the group Les Ravigotteurs (1999), was subsidised by a charitable trust.
Only 13 per cent of postal respondents to my Guernsey language use questionnaire
said that they ever wrote anything in Guernesiais, but 60 per cent of face-to-face
interviewees claimed to, which is a high proportion considering that there has never been
any schooling or literacy training in Guernesiais. The higher proportion of interviewees
writing in Guernesiais probably reflects the fact that many were active in language
associations. This is also reflected in the nature of what they write: mostly items for
public and formal audiences, such as speeches, sermons, poetry, plays, news scripts and
readings for recitation.
Category 5 in Table 4.1 includes religious instruction. Some minority languages, such
as Manx or Welsh, had their status as literary languages enhanced by the translation of
the Bible, and numerous other languages have first been written down by missionaries.
Nevertheless, the presence of a Manx Bible did not prevent the decline of Manx in its
traditional form, which may lend weight to Fishmans insistence on the primacy of the
family domain for language maintenance.
The Bible has never been published in Guernesiais or Jrriais; after the Protestant
Reformation in the sixteenth century, a French Bible and Prayer Book were used once
the Anglican church realised that nobody understood the English ones. Nevertheless, the
continued use of French in churches contributed to the maintenance of Guernesiais into
the twentieth century. The whole Bible was in fact translated into Guernesiais by Thomas
Martin in the early twentieth century.27 However, the rediscovery of this resource (Jones
2007, 2008) has ironically come too late for the generations to whom a Bible in
Guernesiais might have been valuable if attitudes had accepted it (see 4.1).
Sebba (1998, 2000) recounts how Manx was reduced to writing in the eighteenth
century through the translation of religious texts, largely to enable bilingual preachers
literate in English to read texts such as the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer aloud
to congregations. This is an interesting parallel to Guernesiais in that several individual
folk orthographies (see Sallabank 2002 and 6.5) are also intended to facilitate reading
aloud at festivals. Pronunciation spelling is common practice for recitations, but tends
to be idiosyncratic:

Theres no right and wrong way to write in Guernsey French and everybody has
their own way and very often I will rewrite something phonetically so that I can
understand it I think most people do actually because theyve all got their own
way of doing it. (GF39)

This contrasts with the spelling pronunciation observed in Jrriais lessons which
used textbooks that follow a standardised, French-based spelling system (see 6.5):
several children had problems relating the spelling to the pronunciation. Some teachers in
Jersey also distribute phonetic versions of Eisteddfod recitations to learners, although
they express disapproval of them at the same time. Such phonetic renditions are also
somewhat idiosyncratic and are not necessarily easy to follow:

Jai aen ami sa pali tout langllais . . . et i m demndi dcrire sa rcitatiaon je l

vian de trouva aoshtaeirr . . . mais je lai cri comme l dvise . . . et jy mis sus le
tape recorder, autcheun savait pas tchique jai crit ya ioc m. (GF11)
(Ive got a friend who spoke only English . . . and he asked me to write his recitation
I found it just now . . . but I wrote it how I speak . . . and I put it on the tape
recorder, nobody knew what I had written, only me.)

The majority of my informants who write in Guernesiais claim to use the spelling of
the Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais, and some used to go and see the editor, Marie
de Garis, to ask her to check pieces for public consumption (as happened while I was
visiting her). Despite this and exhortations by Eisteddfod adjudicators to use the
Dictionary, an examination of writing in Guernesiais shows that in practice, writers often
use idiosyncratic spellings (Sallabank 2002). Frequently, authors omit silent endings
which are used in French spelling to mark plurals or gender, or use English <sh> instead
of French-style <ch> for the phoneme //. Often the writings reveal a lack of awareness
of the grammatical structure of Guernesiais. This can be seen in the work of Marjorie
Ozanne (18971973), one of the islands most prolific Guernesiais authors, who wrote
numerous poems, plays and short stories; many of the latter were published in a weekly
column in the Guernsey Evening Press.28 Most of the stories were written between 1949
and 1965, and thus predate the 1967 Dictionary. Hill (2000) collected and published
some, with English translations, for a new generation of readers. In his foreword, Hill
comments that Ozanne seems to be trying to use a form of spelling that would sound
comprehensible to an English speaker, rather than the French-based orthography of
earlier writers such as Mtivier and Corbet. Although she worked as a teacher, Ozanne
clearly had little awareness of how to encode the structure of her native tongue. Word
breaks are not always correctly rendered and there are multiple different spellings of the
same word. For example, on the very first page of the first story, one word is spelt in
three different ways: mesme, maesme, maeme (same); on the same page, I dont know
is rendered first as Jensai, and then seven lines later as Je nsai.29 This lack of
consistency detracts from readability and makes it difficult to develop reading fluency,
especially for second language learners; like dialectal variation, it is often described as a
deficit.
Experiences when recording passages for a speaker-evaluation study reinforced
observations that, in the absence of education in Guernesiais or any literacy training,
speakers and learners who are not aware of its structure (or of French spelling and
grammar) find themselves unable to relate the written form to the spoken one, both when
reading and writing. Issues of spelling as it relates to standardisation will be discussed in
Chapter 6.

4.6 Conclusions
Language practices in an endangered language are not straightforward. As well as the
undeniable fact of a reduction in domains and fluency due to the loss of native-speaker
interlocutors, there is substantial idiolectal variation and accelerated yet disputed
language change in both traditional usage and new users and uses (Romaine 2006:
464). As has been indicated in several instances, many practices are mediated by
ideologies. These will be discussed further in Chapter 5, which will examine how the
practices and aspirations of new users of endangered languages may differ from
traditional practices and how traditional(ist) community members may react. Tensions
concern especially what a language can and should be used for, by whom, and who has
the authority and legitimacy to decide.
 5 Language attitudes, ideologies and identity on a
small island
Negative attitudes towards minority languages are common around the world. Often a
vicious spiral develops where negative attitudes and declining domains of use feed each
other. In Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, the cycle of low prestige, both reinforcing
and being reinforced by negative attitudes, led to an ideology of deficit and to language
shift. As with many other minority vernaculars, until the last twenty or thirty years
traditional languages and cultures were associated with backwardness and poverty and
were seen as an impediment to social advancement; English was seen as the route to
economic advantage.
However, in each of these islands there seems to have been a remarkable turnaround in
attitudes towards the end of the twentieth century and in the early twenty-first. As noted
in Chapter 2, in the case of the Isle of Man the last native speakers died in the 1970s,
but for a dead language Manx now seems remarkably vibrant. The prestige of the
native vernaculars is growing, and they are generally now seen as a valuable part of
island heritage and as assets in marketing localness as a brand (Johnson 2010). There
seems to have been a shift in public language ideologies, away from the post-Second
World War monolingual ideal, associated with modernity, to a revalorisation of the value
of linguistic heritage.
Nevertheless, overtly expressed attitudes may not reflect covert ideologies or practices
(see Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998). This chapter goes on to explore these
incongruities and examines to what extent underlying ideologies have really changed. It
also looks at the role of identity in language maintenance and revitalisation activism, and
whether identity and heritage are useful foci for language revitalisation efforts.

5.1 Traditional attitudes towards indigenous vernaculars

As mentioned in Chapter 2, from at least the sixteenth century to the late nineteenth,
Guernesiais and Jrriais were Low language partners in a diglossic relationship with
French. French was used in education, religion, the law and all domains which required
writing. As observed by Jaffe (1999a: 41) regarding Corsica, Diglossia described the
hierarchical, oppositional relationship between Corsican and French. It indexed language
practices (specifically, the exclusion of Corsican from the powerful public sphere) as
well as language attitudes. These were intimately connected. This led to internalisation
of inferiority by speakers with regard to French, which still affects language attitudes
today.
In the Isle of Man too, for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Manx was
considered not a real language and a sign of poverty and of backwardness (Brian
Stowell, personal communication, November 2009).1 Broderick (1991, 1996, 1999)
chronicles the process of negative attitudes and the decline of Manx. Rosemary
Derbyshire, Manx Language Officer in the Education Department from 2005 to 2011,
commented in November 2008: theres a certain type of Manx person who is not very
keen on Manx because an awful lot of people were taught from an early age and their
parents and grandparents were taught that it was a bad thing and only stupid people
spoke Manx.
Nineteenth-century attitudes can also be deduced from contemporary writings such as
Inglis (1835), Anon. (1845), S.D.F. (1882), Boland (1885), Lewis (1895). Although no
comparative attitude surveys were carried out before the late twentieth century,
informants consistently report that as with many other minority vernaculars, Guernesiais,
Jrriais and Manx were perceived as an impediment to social advancement.
After the Second World War, there was a culture of modernisation, and traditional
languages and cultures were associated with backwardness and poverty: it [Guernesiais]
was holding us back, stated one informant. In this respect, Denisons (1977) allegation
of language suicide and Ladefogeds (1992) assertion that many minority language
speakers consciously trade their traditional language for economic gain are upheld to a
certain extent. But it would be disingenuous to claim that people choosing language
shift have free choice. The re-forging of collective island identity to omit local languages
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from an old to a new ethnicity, in the terms
of Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982: 5), may not have been entirely voluntary. As
well as the internalised ideologies of language inferiority inculcated through centuries of
diglossia, the post-Second World War modernising ideology and the need to rebuild
society in the aftermath of the German occupation of the Channel Islands (in terms of
both economy and intra-communal relations) meant that the islanders in effect had a lack
of freedom in language choice and identity formation, a phenomenon also observed by
Dorian (1994a).
Informant GF39 described societal pressure to raise children in English in the 1950s:

GF39: When I was little it [Guernesiais] was the first language that I learnt and my
mother took a lot of stick for allowing me
INTERVIEWER: Why was that?
GF39: It was because I think it was early 50s, the war was over and so on and it
wasnt fashionable at the time
INTERVIEWER: So who was giving her the stick?
GF39: Oh a lot of the other mothers: oh gosh you know youre letting her speak
patois and when she goes to school she wont be able to learn shell be a
 dunce and all the rest of it.

Another reported that when his brother started school, he had been told to go home
and come back when you can speak English.
A Jersey interviewee recounted:

It was finished, Jersey French . . . Im ninety now, over ninety when I started
school at six we didnt know anything but Jersey French everybody spoke it now
its totally different, which is good really. Ive got two children and I used to tell
em when they went to school the master didnt want the children to speak . . . old
folk used to go mad when the kids came back and said youre not allowed to speak
Jersey French I said its because he wants you to learn the proper French if you
go anywhere and you know French fluently and English, youll get a job anywhere
but the Jersey French is just amongst ourselves really, but were proud to think
weve got our own language.

Another Jersey informant reported:

Historically you see . . . the previous generation it was so strongly discouraged in

school to the point, not in my time but before that, you could be punished for
speaking Jrriais in the playground or in school . . . it was quite strong at one stage,
probably I dont know twenties, thirties . . . I never knew that but even in my day
you were thought of as a country bumpkin basically if you admitted to it . . . so a
lot of people almost deliberately discouraged their children at home so that they
wouldnt get that.

These quotations illustrate the dilemma of parents faced with disapproval of their
language at school, and their rationalisation of their choices. Given such experiences,
combined with the di-/triglossic relationship where the local language was always the
Low partner, first to French and then to English, it is not surprising that attitudes among
these generations reflect a classic social-psychological split of status vs. solidarity
(Giles and Ryan 1982; Giles and Johnson 1987).
Negative attitudes persisted until relatively recently. A retired teacher reported that
Guernesiais lessons were proposed at secondary schools in the 1970s, and a survey was
carried out of how many pupils could speak it: not one would admit to it, although she
knew that some did. A small survey carried out in Guernsey in the 1990s (Domaille
1996) indicated that at that time the ethnolinguistic vitality of Guernesiais was still
declining in terms of speaker numbers, visibility/audibility and attitudes.
But towards the end of the twentieth century, attitudes gradually changed. A
respondent to my attitude questionnaire (see 5.2) proclaimed:
 When I was at school [1960s], it was the perception that Guernsey French was an
inferior language, a language of peasants! One was looked down upon as being
countrified if one was associated with the language. There seemed to be no
comprehension, or if there was, no acceptance, that Norman French was the
language of William the Conqueror; that it preceded French; that it is our heritage!
As such, I feel strongly that it should not be allowed to disappear . . . I believe there
has to be a greater effort yet to promote the language at the political level, at this
eleventh hour, so as to try to ensure that our own heritage is preserved. (AQ23)

These changing attitudes will be explored in the next section.

5.2 Language attitudes in the twenty-first century

This section will focus primarily on a questionnaire survey carried out in Guernsey in
2004 to test the anecdotal reports of attitude shift mentioned above and in Chapter 3.
The survey included attitudinal and identity-related statements to which respondents
were invited to disagree strongly, disagree mildly, be neutral, agree mildly or
agree strongly; demographic information was also collected, and respondents were
given an opportunity for general comments. The year 2004 was an opportune time to
conduct such research, as (1) the 800th anniversary of independence focused attention on
island identity; and (2) the profile of Guernesiais had been raised by the introduction of
voluntary extra-curricular language sessions at primary schools (see Chapter 6). The
questionnaire and interview data substantiate increasingly positive attitudes towards
Guernesiais among the majority community (Anglophones).
Potential respondents were contacted via the friend of a friend method (Milroy
1987): a range of contacts were asked to find other respondents who were not committed
language revitalisation enthusiasts but preferably people who had not thought much
about language issues. The core contacts exerted pressure on their friends to return the
questionnaire, leading to a high level of response.
A total of 209 questionnaires were returned (0.35% of the 59,710 population counted
in the 2001 census). The demographic profile of respondents matched the census in that
only 2.26% reported speaking Guernesiais fluently (compared to 2.22% in the census2),
and one-third were non-Guernsey-born. In the census, 51.4% of the population was
female and 48.6% male, whereas in the survey a slightly higher proportion of those who
answered this question was female (58.8%). Many of the questionnaires were circulated
through workplaces, especially major employment sectors in Guernsey such as the civil
service, education and banking sectors. Concerns about representativeness were allayed
by the statistical analysis, which revealed that neither gender, job sector, geographical
origin, nor proficiency in Guernesiais seemed to have a bearing on reported attitudes. A
couple of factors are worth taking into account, however: firstly, it would appear from
comparison with census data that the sample was on balance more highly qualified than
the general population. The education and occupation questions were together intended
to try to gauge social class. Respondents with no qualifications tended to express less
positive attitudes towards Guernesiais, while those with postgraduate qualifications
tended towards positive statements, although the difference is not statistically significant.
Secondly, when the results were analysed by age group, the under-eighteens were
found to be marginally more likely to have negative attitudes. Although this was not
statistically significant, as the number of young people learning a language is seen as
emblematic of its vitality, the attitudes of young people were investigated in more detail
and will be discussed below.
The strength of support expressed for at least the idea of maintaining Guernesiais in
the questionnaire results was surprising, even given the previous anecdotal reports.
Responses to attitude statements indicated overwhelmingly positive overt attitudes, as
shown in Table 5.1.3

Table 5.1 Overview of results of attitude statement questionnaire

Overall percentages of those

Statement
who answered question

It doesnt matter if Guernsey Norman 50.5% disagreed strongly

French* dies out 25.3% disagreed mildly

Guernsey Norman French is irrelevant to 35.80% agreed strongly or

the modern world mildly
16.48% neutral
47.73% disagreed strongly or
mildly

Guernsey Norman French should be taught 48.9% agreed strongly or

in schools mildly
31.1% disagreed strongly or
mildly

The States [island government] should 65.2% agreed strongly or

support Guernsey Norman French mildly
18.4% disagreed strongly or
mildly

Speaking Guernsey Norman French is an 24.7% agreed strongly

 important part of Guernsey identity 34.3% agreed mildly
25.3% neutral
15.7% disagreed strongly or
mildly

Guernsey should maintain a unique 70% agreed strongly

identity of its own 25% agreed mildly

Guernsey Norman French is just corrupt 28.3% disagreed mildly

French 52.2% disagreed strongly

You cant speak English properly if you 10.2% disagreed mildly

speak Guernsey Norman French 81.5% disagreed strongly

I would like to know Guernsey Norman 30.7% agreed strongly

French 26.7% agreed mildly
25.2% neutral
17.3% disagreed strongly or
mildly

* The term Guernsey Norman French was used, following the example of the Census, to avoid
ambiguity. See the discussion of language naming in 2.2.

The proportion of responses in favour of general States (government) support for

Guernesiais was higher across all sectors of the population than the more specific
statement Guernsey Norman French should be taught in schools. Although teaching
Guernesiais in schools (in optional extra-curricular lessons) is the mostly widely
publicised and longest-running language-related activity, and the one that interviewees
associated most strongly with saving Guernesiais, these responses suggest that
language planning might benefit from focusing on areas other than formal education. In
interviews and written comments, some respondents mentioned the already crowded
curriculum, while some stressed that lessons should be voluntary; some felt that teaching
a major world language would be more useful, while others questioned the efficacy of
extra-curricular lessons. One suggested that association with school could put children
off Guernesiais; in Ireland, compulsory Irish has had such an effect (Fennell 1981;
Cooper 1989; Judge 2007). The effectiveness of school-based language policies may also
be challenged by the finding that school students were the occupational group least
favourably disposed towards measures such as Guernsey Norman French should be
taught in schools; once again, however, the difference was not statistically significant
(Pearson r = 0.782). Healthcare workers, education and IT workers were the occupational
groups with the most favourable opinions, while the financial sector and civil service
were more evenly divided. Further cross-tabulation established that educationalists are
the profession most likely to come from outside the island, yet also tend to be pro-
Guernesiais, whereas the students questioned were all Guernsey-born.
The vast majority of all respondents disagreed with the statements Guernsey Norman-
French is just corrupt French and You cant speak English properly if you speak
Guernsey Norman-French, which were included in the survey because such folk-
linguistic views had previously been cited by interviewees as reasons for language shift.
Such views are no longer seen as acceptable in overt statements: only four respondents
admitted agreeing strongly and six mildly with the former, and just one agreed strongly
and two mildly with the latter. One informant who was brought up speaking Guernesiais
commented:

That was the perception that if you learnt this language you were going to be stupid
you know you wouldnt be able to manage in English and you wouldnt be able to
learn at school and so on. I mean nowadays being bilingual is something to be proud
of but in those days . . . (GF39)

The Guernsey attitude survey focused consciously on collecting explicit attitudes in

the manner of an opinion poll or market research survey; it did not attempt to gauge
practices. For example, only 16 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement, I
would like to know Guernsey Norman-French; the statement was deliberately worded
not to attribute blame for any inaction on their part. The following probably spoke for
many: I cant feel more Guernsey than I do I wish I could speak but Im a very lazy
learner (AQ87).
The 30.7 per cent who agreed strongly are presumably the most likely to try and learn
it; if this is a reflection of the population as a whole, then educational opportunities for
learning Guernesiais are woefully inadequate.
Very few people on the islands, especially public figures, are now prepared to make
on-the-record statements against indigenous language revitalisation (although some do
privately): the fact that normative pressure makes anti-revitalisation statements
unacceptable indicates how far attitudes have changed. A Guernsey politician
commented:

I dont think youll find one person in Guernsey whos not keen . . . well there are
some who dont think its progressive, why should we go back, Ive had one or two
why should we waste all our time in learning about Guernsey French? So what can
you say? Well its up to you but I dont think its a waste of time. Thankfully theres
a lot more people that feel the same . . . We do things ourselves, we try to encourage
departments to take up some of our phrases. Our letters go out with Guernsey
French.
 Negative responses to the survey followed two main themes: firstly that language
diversity reduces intercultural understanding:

Communication between groups should be made easier rather than reintroducing an

incomprehensible patois. (QGE2)

A second, more frequent, objection was that local languages are not useful in the
modern world:

No point in trying to revive waste of time Latin far more valuable. (QGE45)
Time and money should be spent on teaching French, Spanish and German. No need
for Norman French in a modern world. (AQ53)

A Twitter reply to the announcement of a new language policy in Guernsey in

February 2013 asked cant we just save time and money and let the language die a
natural death, no one needs or uses it?4 There seems to be a public perception that
generally positive attitudes towards Guernesiais have even become the dominant view,
which some majority group members may resent. One Anglophone commented I dont
agree with trying to revitalise something just for the kudos. One even felt slightly
threatened by the resurgence in Guernesiais:

I dont want to get rid of Guernsey French but its a problem if languages divide
people. I would be very upset if English had been marginalised . . . if Guernsey
French was resurrected one group of people would have special status. (GE28)

This comment reflects two commonly held tropes: firstly, that linguistic diversity is
potentially divisive (see Chapter 1), and secondly, giving voice to a commonly held
perception in Guernsey, that the island language is the property, or purview, of a
particular group (specifically traditional speakers), rather than a resource available to the
whole population or to anyone who wants to learn it. Implications of this view will be
discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 7.
The results of this survey were presented to the Guernsey Culture and Leisure
Committee in 2007 and contributed to the subsequent decision to support language
revitalisation by appointing a Language Officer (see Chapter 6).
I subsequently carried out further qualitative research on attitudes in Guernsey in
20047 and on language policy in all three islands in 200812, interviewing language
activists, politicians and officials, as well as ordinary islanders. I also conducted a small-
scale questionnaire survey in shopping centres on each island to gauge awareness of the
governments language policies as well as language attitudes. One of the most negative
opinions was expressed by a homeless retired caretaker in St Helier, the Jersey capital,
who felt that the government should not be spending money on a dead language. He
was of Jersey origin, but had been born in England during the Second World War. A
strongly contrasting attitude was expressed by a Chilean-born journalist, who felt that it
was extremely important for the island to retain its own identity; she felt that language
was a really important part of island identity but was being lost; island identity was
being stolen while British culture was being imposed. Along with the results from
Guernsey with regard to class, occupation and origin described above, this illustrates that
language attitudes cannot be simplistically correlated with a traditional essentialist
interpretation of ethnic identity and nationalism, especially as the islands become
increasingly ethnically diverse.
In both Jersey and the Isle of Man, language activists efforts to persuade the island
governments to fund (or at least facilitate) school lessons in the indigenous languages
were supported by surveys which provided evidence of shifts in public opinion. In
Jersey, parents of primary-aged children were surveyed in 1998 to ask whether they
would send their children to Jrriais lessons if these were available. Even campaigners
were surprised at the level of support expressed in the survey (Tony Scott-Warren,
personal communication, June 2000). A member of Le Don Balleine Trust, which
manages the teaching team, recounted how careful preparations were made to raise
language awareness before the survey:

Whenever I said we should teach it in schools, people would say its too late or its a
waste of time, what economic benefit would it have. Some of those views are still
around today . . . I was conscious that . . . unless you present people with the
information you cant expect a reasonable answer . . . I then set about talking to the
media: Post, Radio Jersey in particular, but also Channel TV . . . they all agreed to
do a series of articles or programmes to illustrate the value of the language in
understanding history, the depth of the language in terms of the expressions we use
and how it relates to Jersey culture. All of this was rolled out over three to four
months and then we did a questionnaire . . . asking parents . . .if Jrriais classes were
available, would you want your child to learn Jrriais. Having rolled this out in the
media their awareness was raised considerably, and we were staggered to find that
600 families, nearly a thousand children would be interested . . . my hope was a
hundred.

In the Isle of Man a general quality of life survey was carried out by the government in
1986. One of the questions asked whether respondents would be in favour if their
children were given the opportunity to learn Manx; a third of respondents said yes. This
survey is cited by language activists as a major turning-point in official language policy.
Although Manx was traditionally looked down on as a peasant language (Marie Clague,
personal communication, 11 November 2008), Manx now has a growing number of
speakers, official recognition, public examinations and a rapidly expanding functionality
(Kewley Draskau 2001). There is a vigorous language revitalisation movement and
considerable government support. Chapter 6 will discuss in more detail how language
policy developed.
Since the 1970s/1980s, in all three islands, grass-roots campaigning has contributed to
a political climate in which government support for the indigenous languages came to be
seen as desirable by both the general public and politicians. Research demonstrating
attitude shift among the general public has been able to influence government policy.
Positive attitudes and awareness-raising cannot in themselves save a language without
more concrete measures; however, they can lead to public support for such measures.

5.2.1 The old and the young

In all three islands, both official and grass-roots discourses place paramount importance
on young people or children as the future of local languages in spite of, or perhaps in
reaction to, the lack of children learning the languages in their families. In this respect lip
service is paid to Joshua Fishmans emphasis on intergenerational transmission as the
gold standard of language maintenance (see Preface), but in practice most of the
attempts at transmission are through formal education (cf. King 2001; Romaine 2006;
and Chapter 7).
In some cases these responses illustrate what Yan Marquis, former Guernsey
Language Officer, has termed distance learning: partly because of folk linguistic beliefs
about language learning, adults see themselves as poor language learners and transfer the
responsibility to children to learn in their stead. Yet relatively few learners acquire
fluency through school lessons, and even fewer through the minimal extra-curricular
language sessions available in the Channel Islands. Meanwhile, in the Isle of Man a large
proportion of the current proficient speakers learnt Manx as adults, although this is
changing as more children grow up learning Manx (Rob Teare, Manx Education
Language Officer, personal communication, November 2012). Some of the implications
for language policy of ideologies about language learning will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Yet there is some evidence of enthusiasm for local languages among both children and
the parental generation. The number of children attending the Manx-medium primary
school has grown from under ten at its inception in 2002 to sixty-nine enrolled for the
2013 intake (Julie Matthews, head teacher, personal communication, November 2012).
Both the Jersey and Guernsey Eisteddfods have seen substantial growth in the number of
primary-age children entering since 2005 (to a large extent this is due to the efforts of
organisers in coaching children through schools). At an agricultural show where I helped
on a stand promoting Guernesiais in 200910, there was considerable interest from
young families in child-orientated learning materials such as word games, and several
requests for lessons to be started at schools where they were not available.
The slightly less positive attitudes in responses to the Guernesiais attitude
questionnaire from under-eighteens and students/schoolchildren, although not
statistically significant, could be seen as worrying for the future of the language. The
trend is confirmed by Havard (2008) and Ferguson (2012), who found less interest in the
local language among teenagers than among older respondents. But many of my
questionnaires were distributed through workplaces, and the number of respondents aged
under eighteen was very small and so may not be representative. I therefore interviewed
young people aged 1118 in six secondary schools and found more varied responses (see
below).
In my attitude questionnaire, respondents under eighteen were the least likely to agree
with the statement Speaking Guernsey Norman French is an important part of Guernsey
identity and those over sixty most likely: this difference is statistically significant, with a
Pearson regression analysis score of 0.03. However, once respondents reach the age of
eighteen there is a notable change in responses, with thirty-four out of fifty-four
respondents aged 1135 agreeing strongly or mildly with the statement.
The under-eighteen age group expressed the most positive attitudes in two areas:
firstly, they were the most likely to want to know Guernesiais, with 42.9% agreeing
strongly; next came the over-sixties,5 37.5% of whom agreed strongly, although the
differences are not statistically significant. Secondly, 28.6% of under-eighteens disagreed
strongly with the statement Guernesiais is irrelevant to the modern world, higher than
the average of 16%, while another 21.4% disagreed mildly; this is just about statistically
significant (Pearson r = 0.048).
As mentioned earlier, under-eighteens were the age group whose support for teaching
Guernesiais in schools was most equivocal compared to other age groups, but again not
to a statistically significant degree (Pearson r = 0.420). The age group taught in the extra-
curricular lessons is under-elevens, younger than most questionnaire respondents. Their
participation is likely to be decided by their parents, and their own attitudes towards the
language are likely to be influenced more by enjoyment of the lesson activities than by
what Gardner and Lambert (1972) call instrumental or integrative orientation, that is, the
perceived usefulness of a language, or perceptions of the speaker community (Nikolov
1999). Teachers in the extra-curricular classes also reported that the pupils enjoyed doing
something their friends could not. After a Jrriais lesson observed in November 2012, a
child commented That was awesome! People involved in teaching the languages to
children highlight the incredible enthusiasm of the kids: a Manx activist stated: this
hasnt been made clear, its impossible to make this clear because people will think were
being propagandist here, but they were incredibly enthusiastic, its fantastic honestly.
Under-eighteen is a wide range which encompasses several stages of development:
even at secondary school, eleven-year-olds, fifteen-year-olds and eighteen-year-olds of
both genders are at markedly different stages of maturity. I discussed language issues
with young people aged 1118 in several schools:

Year 7 (aged 1112), one class, during French Studies lesson; French teacher
present
 A group of sixth formers (aged 1618): eighteen students, optional session with
credit; no teacher present
Year 8 (aged 1314), 2 classes (approximately sixty children) during Citizenship
lesson; class teacher present
Year 9 (aged 1516): five students; supply teacher present
Five female sixth formers (aged 18), no teacher present (organised by one of the
students)
Individual seventeen-year-old girl; parents present.

Most of the eleven-year-olds thought it would be a good idea to learn Guernesiais in

schools (Its like we live in Guernsey and like we should learn), although with
thirteen- to seventeen-year-olds the proportion dropped to a small minority. Some said
they would like to speak it with their grandparents. The fifteen- to sixteen-year-olds
expressed the least interest in Guernesiais only one had even heard of it. The majority
of one group of seventeen- to eighteen-year-olds voiced an opinion also found among
older informants that it was not worth learning a dying language which is not useful
elsewhere but a majority were in favour of introducing Guernesiais at a younger level.
Yet all but one of the eighteen-year-old girls seemed to take it as a matter of course that
Guernesiais was worth saving, mainly due to its importance in island heritage.
To make sense of these apparent contradictions, it is possible to generalise that the
attitudes of young people towards Guernesiais seem to progress from positive to negative
to positive again, reflecting their personal development, as shown in Table 5.2. This
confirms and explains the perhaps contradictory findings of Baker (1992) with thirteen-
year-olds in Wales and Schjerve (1980) with fifteen- to twenty-year-olds in Sardinia.

Table 5.2 Attitude progression among young people

Age group
Attitude Motivation
(approx.)

Under 12 Positive Parents interest in island identity

Participation in fun activities
Doing something that their friends cannot
(reported by parents and teachers)

1316 Negative General teenage disaffection

Peer pressure not to be uncool
Perception of English as linked with
modernity
Rebellion against traditional values perceived
 as repressive
Recalcitrance towards researcher associated
with school establishment

1725+ Increasingly Increasing awareness

positive Maturity, capacity to form own opinions
Reduced susceptibility to peer pressure
Educational level of 6th-form and university-
level informants

Several older interviewees noted that it was common for people to reject traditional
values in their teens and twenties, but become enthusiastic about Guernesiais in middle
age or later:6

As a teenager I rejected the microcosmic culture that my parents represented the

baby went out with the bathwater . . . my rebellion included despising Guernsey
French. (GF33)

Another pointed out that the increased self-confidence of mature people helps
overcome peer pressure:

Now Im older I dont feel so intimidated by people saying it sounds odd its us,
why shouldnt anyone learn it? (QGF39)

It should be emphasised, however, that despite peer pressure age groups are not
homogeneous, and that in the questionnaire differences between them were not
statistically significant. On several occasions two or three generations of a family were
interviewed together: in about a third of these family focus groups, the younger
generation seemed more positive than the older; in another third, vice versa; for the
others there was no clear difference in attitudes.
Despite the focus of language supporters on teaching young children, it was assumed
by some older speakers that young people and immigrants will not be interested in
Guernesiais, and language maintenance activities can perpetuate this attitude by focusing
on traditional culture. As one interviewee in her twenties stated:

Learning Guernsey French is not cool, there is nothing to encourage the younger
generation the Eisteddfod7 is mostly for older people. (GE16)

This indicates that if language planning measures are to attract younger people, they
may need to be of a type which interests them. But as will be seen below, this may not be
the priority for organisers of such events.
Although over half of the school pupils interviewed reported having little interest in
Guernesiais, a small but significant proportion independently expressed interest in
learning it as a secret language of our own. A seventeen-year-old, who according to her
parents had never spoken about language issues before, stated (unprompted): [children]
should be forced to speak it in primary school. She also commented it would be quality
to have our own language. This sentiment was echoed independently by some of the
Year 8 schoolchildren: A secret language of your own cool. This indicates a different
type of affective interest in language and may offer a way for language planners to sell
traditional language and culture to young people, as teenagers have little interest in
typical language promotion events, which usually celebrate traditional culture and thus
reinforce the old-fashioned reputation of the traditional language.

5.2.2 Attitudes and ideologies: covert and overt beliefs

Although the apparent softening of attitudes towards indigenous languages among the
population as a whole might seem a positive development in terms of support for
language maintenance measures, negative attitudes towards indigenous and minority
languages and dialects have been inculcated and internalised over centuries. It would
therefore be surprising if they disappeared completely overnight without any residual
manifestations. As mentioned in Chapter 3, underlying ideologies and covert beliefs are
not necessarily revealed through direct questions, but may need to be inferred or deduced
from discourses and by observing behaviours and practices.
There are two trends emerging from recent ethnographic observations which indicate
that despite positive overt statements, not all islanders have embraced attitude shift.
Firstly, ethnographic research has found that some Guernsey people still covertly
perceive Guernesiais as an inferior dialect of French (Marquis and Sallabank
forthcoming); from some interviews it appears that this may also be the case with
Jrriais. This even appears to be the case with some who are influential in language
maintenance circles and who see themselves as authorities on language.
Secondly, Guernesiais supporters are split between those who want to expand the
domains of the language and open it up to new speakers, and traditionalists or purists
whose affective attachment to their heritage language reflects nostalgia for a bygone
world; this aspect of self-identification in relation to language will be discussed in 5.3.
Some of these traditionalists think of themselves as authorities on language and
owners or guardians of the language, and feel that as elders they should retain
control of both language practices and of language policy (Marquis and Sallabank
forthcoming). This is often expressed as concern about language change, which is
perceived as negative, as will be discussed in 5.4.
 When asked why the negative attitudes towards Manx which predominated in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had changed, a former Manx Language Officer
replied:

The language was really ignored and downgraded and thought of as a sign of
inferiority and poverty and this still lingers on with old people, and I tend to upset
some people when they say whats caused the change in attitude and I say all those
old people died. Which is actually partly, largely true.

Another former Manx Language Officer corroborated this: The grim reaper is doing
his work . . . so I think people are now more open to all sorts of things that people want
to learn in schools. Some implications of these ideological incongruities for the
development of language policy, in the Isle of Man and elsewhere, are discussed in
Chapter 7.

5.3 Language and identity

5.3.1 Identity, symbolic ethnicity and language maintenance

The development of efficient communications has brought more cultures into contact
than ever before. In the cases of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, cultural contacts
have a long history, as discussed in Chapter 2. The extent to which this entails cultural
and linguistic change or shift depends on how confident speakers are in their local
language and culture, which in turn is a reflection of their status in the society. It seems
that only in what Rampton (2006) and Heller (2011) term late modernity has cultural
and linguistic change become of concern to more than a minority.
Johnson (2008b: 55) observes that

Jrriais (Jersey Norman-French) is used by some islanders in an attempt to maintain

and (re-)construct local tradition. While Jrriais experienced considerable decline in
the latter half of the twentieth century, it currently holds the position of being a
minority language on the one hand, yet a language that has immense significance for
many islanders on the other, particularly in its use in contexts that continue, invent
and re-invent island tradition.

Identity can be manifested in both private and public spheres: private acts of identity
(linked to covert attitudes) affect language choice and transmission, while overt, public
acts of symbolic identification (such as performance at festivals and the use of local
languages in signage) promote the idea of language, and perhaps linguistic self-
confidence.
 In all three islands, attitudes towards the local languages are closely connected to
notions of identity. As mentioned in Chapter 1, many of my informants expressed fairly
conventional, essentialist views of links between language and identity:

Support for the language is to do with mortality: when your language and culture
die, part of you dies too. (GF41)

Such feelings are not necessarily dependent on ability to speak the language:

Dr Sallabank Veen
[Dear Dr Sallabank]
Moghrey mie (Good morning)
Thank you for your email and your on-going interest in Manx Gaelic my own
Manx is very limited but I use a few words in every email to raise awareness! (Isle
of Man civil servant, by email, 2 November 2012)
As a Jerseyman I like the fact that we have our own language because thats
another form of being distinct from being part of Britain . . . we have a distinct
heritage and part of that distinct heritage is a distinct language and it would be a
terrible shame if that language were to die out . . . (Jersey Anglophone, 50s)
I think that being such a small island there is a strong national identity and I
imagine the biggest part of that is the language it puts our heritage at the forefront
really and its something that I think a lot of people are quite proud of. (Parent at
Bunscoill Manx medium primary school)

Many of these respondents linked language to heritage and culture. Some expressed a
profound emotional attachment to language as part of their identity. One wrote on the
questionnaire Culture, language, both interdependent, as language fades, so culture
dies. When interviewed subsequently this informant elaborated as follows:

Ones identity I think is very tied back into ones traditions and background they
are what make you and the culture that you exist in different to any other, in my
opinion. And as a result of that if you have a language which adds and enrichens
[sic] that then I think that its very important that that be continued . . . My dearest
wish is that before the language dies completely in Guernsey that it be not
resurrected but given rebirth really to some extent people who still speak it can
encourage the people who want to learn it thats my feeling. (AQ112)

Despite this stated attachment to cultural heritage, responses to a statement on the

Guernsey attitudes questionnaire which specifically linked language to local identity,
Speaking Guernsey Norman French is an important part of Guernsey identity, were
relatively equivocal, with only 24.7% of those who answered this question agreeing
strongly, 34.3% agreeing mildly, and 25.3% neutral. Nevertheless, only 8.6% disagreed
strongly and 7.1% mildly with this statement.
Likewise, while an overwhelming majority agreed with the statement Guernsey
Norman French is an important part of our heritage, the distribution of responses to the
statement Guernsey Norman French is irrelevant to the modern world was more even.
This may indicate that while Guernesiais is valued for symbolic identity and island
distinctiveness, it is associated with nostalgia and traditional culture rather than seen as a
living form of communication; and that island identity might be expressed more through
symbolic attachment to language-as-heritage than to actual linguistic behaviour.
Subsequent ethnographic study has confirmed these hypotheses, which have implications
for language planning.
A number of informants had no interest in the ancestral language as a marker of island
identity especially those whose forebears shifted language for economic reasons, or
whose ancestors were immigrants, or had been brought up to believe that Guernesiais
was holding people back. Yet very few of them would describe themselves as English,
or even British.

Im rather fatalistic about the survival of Guernsey-French. Another fifty years and
it will have passed into history. Im not too worried about that. I dont feel
particularly attached to it . . . I dont feel any the less Guernsey for that. (GE11)

Fishman (1991) claims that one cannot be Xish through language Y. However, in a
survey of speakers of Jrriais, Skeet (2000) asked this very question and found that
although most respondents retained a strong affective attachment to and identification
with Jrriais, they saw in their daily lives numerous people who were adequately
identified both by themselves and by others as fully Jersey without speaking the
indigenous language, so were forced to conclude that speaking Jrriais was not an
essential indicator of Jerseyness. To maintain that it is both flies in the face of observed
reality and also risks alienating the majority population. Feelings of distinctive ethnic
identity are multifaceted and can outlive objective measures such as language and
culture, so that a Guernsey person can still feel pride at being from Guernsey, although
linguistically and culturally they may well be indistinguishable from someone from
England.
One interesting facet of identity construction on the three islands is that the Isle of
Man describes itself as a nation, whereas the Channel Islands are not usually thought of
as a nation, or even as an entity. A link between language and national identity is often
assumed in discourse on language and ethnicity, but just what the national identity is in
the Channel Islands is not easy to ascertain. Falla (2000) states: My passport says Im a
British citizen with no EU national rights. Ive never felt English. Ive always been very
clear to call myself British. Maybe, like all Guerns, I have a bit of an identity crisis.

Ive been known to say but youre English No Im not Im Guernsey. But thats
English No its not it is not English Ive been known to have arguments with
people in France No Im not English thank you. (GF34)
It annoys me that I have to say Im from the UK when I buy things on the internet
because Im not from the UK, Im from Great Britain, but theres no option.
(AQ123)

Liddicoat (1993: 8), in a paper on the social identity of speakers of Serquiais, claims
that The strategy of individual mobility and the adoption of English is perceived by
Norman-French speakers as successful in attaining a positively valued self identity . . .
This identity seems to have been radically changed from Norman French to British.
However, Liddicoat refers to the Channel Islands as part of Great Britain/the United
Kingdom, which is incorrect, although subjectively islanders may consider themselves
British (and many non-Serquiais-speaking community members have immigrated from
the UK).
But islanders also view themselves as part of the British Isles, for example in sport,
athletes compete for Britain or England.8 Guernseys football team has joined an English
county league and has commissioned a Guernesiais-language slogan. There are strong
royalist sentiments in the Channel Islands towards the British Crown due to the historical
link through the Duchy of Normandy: the traditional toast is la Royne not Duc (the queen
our duke). There are some links with France/Normandy (e.g. town twinning; a pan-
Norman cultural festival; Maison de Normandie, a cultural centre funded by the
mainland Normandy regional government in Jersey), but culturally and economically the
islands face almost entirely towards the UK.
There are strong (if good-natured) rivalries between Guernsey and Jersey, especially in
inter-island football matches. Although politically they are slightly more independent
than the Isle of Man, in terms of identity they may see Britain as their overarching
nation.9 Even within each island there is rivalry between parishes (administrative
divisions). Each parish has its own character and formerly had its own distinct dialect of
Guernesiais. In February 2006 I saw a car with a bumper sticker with the Vale parish
crest saying: Jsis d l Vall me ouque t d? A literal translation might be: Im
from the Vale me where you from?10 I found it very interesting to see this modern-
format act of regional identity in what purported to be Guernesiais, but was unable to
talk to the driver as I was in the car behind. However, when I asked informants (who
happened to be from western parishes) for their views on it, their only reaction was cant
see why theyre proud to be from the Vale responding without exception in terms of
regional rivalry rather than to the grammar and spelling, or to the value of such an item
for prestige language planning.
 Association with the Vikings is an iconic element of identity construction in all three
islands. However, in all three islands the Vikings seem to have accommodated quickly to
the local languages: the Manx language has only minimal Norse influence on the local
language and very few words of Norse origin (Ager 2009: 15), although a number of
place and family names are of Viking origin. In the Channel Islands some form of
Romance language has been spoken for over 2,000 years, with only a few Norse
elements being added, relating particularly to ships, the sea and shoreline, e.g. vraic
(seaweed), hala (to haul), dicq (embankment, dyke), bnque (low cliff, beach), hou
(island) in Guernesiais.
Chapter 6 will discuss further how language is consciously being used as an identity
marker in language revitalisation, e.g. to market local products.

5.3.2 Distinctiveness or inclusive identity through language?

Questionnaire responses, comments and interviews in all three islands indicated concern
for the loss of island distinctiveness. As noted in Chapter 2, a major impetus for
revitalising Manx language in the 1970s was perceived demographic swamping of
ethnic Manx by immigrants from the UK (in the terms of Myhill 1999).
Seventy per cent of respondents to the Guernsey attitude questionnaire reported
agreeing strongly with the statement Guernsey should maintain a unique identity of its
own, with 25 per cent more agreeing mildly (remembering that only 67 per cent of
respondents were born in Guernsey). Comments included:

We must maintain our independent culture and heritage. (AQ27)

Very sad to see Anglicization [of] many aspects of Guernsey life. (AQ70)
Guernsey is a unique island and needs to be kept that way. Our language is
important in identifying Guernsey people. (AQ113)
Guernsey French identifies the island even though I dont speak it . . . necessary to
keep it going to keep island identity. (AQ88)

Indigenous language is thus seen as a marker of island distinctiveness in the face of

perceived Anglicisation and the homogenising effects of globalisation, as suggested by
Trudgill (2004). Marquis and I (forthcoming) show how this view of language as a
marker of distinctiveness is reflected in government policy, as a strategic element in
positioning Guernsey on the world stage. The Foreword to the cultural strategy of the
Guernsey governments Culture and Leisure Department for 201014 (States of
Guernsey, 2010: 3) asserts:

Our difference from everywhere else in the world is what makes Guernsey unique
and if we wish to remain unique and independent we must use every opportunity
and every difference that we have from the rest of the world to make that case. Why
 is it important to promote and preserve our differences? I offer a simple answer, and
one that has been used widely by others extinction is forever. Our Guernsey
French language is an example of what we could lose unless we take the appropriate
steps to preserve it.

A major strand in the literature on language and ethnic identity is the view of language
as marker of inter-group identity (e.g. Tajfel 1974; Giles 1977; Giles and Johnson 1981;
Hogg and Abrams 1988, 2001, inter alia), although there are wide variations in the
definition of a group (Husband and Saifullah-Khan 1982: 200). Potter and Wetherell
(1987) note that the exercise of identifying group boundaries is often problematic; in
these island contexts it is not clear where ethnic or group boundaries can be drawn. Local
language speakers and Anglophones are physically and culturally indistinguishable, and
even native-speaking campaigners admit to having problems telling from the accent in
English who is a speaker of local languages. As noted previously, speaking Jrriais can
no longer be viewed as a prerequisite of Jerseyness (Skeet 2000). There has been a
certain degree of intermarriage, so that it would cause family rifts to identify English
speakers as an out-group. It is likely that such peaceable inter-group coexistence
contributes to language shift; but would conflict be preferable?

I dont make much effort to find [opportunities to speak Guernesiais] really apart
from meeting people you know that know it I dont go to any societies that
specifically speak in Guernsey French I didnt join lAssembllae dGuernesiais
because my wife doesnt know it and I feel that it would be a division you know?
(GF13)
I wouldnt want to go to a whole evening where no English is spoken because I
wouldnt be able to take my wife. (GF4)

A common-sense assumption can be made that descendants of immigrants are less

likely to speak the indigenous language. A number of Guernsey respondents felt that
people not born in the island were also less likely to be interested in Guernesiais:

It [the language] means something to me as a Guernseyman. With less people living

in Guernsey with a pure family heritage here it is unlikely to be as important to
others. (AQ16)
Its difficult because theres so many English kids and stuff in school now you
know, should we really teach people with no Guernsey background at all Guernsey
French because their parents are going to say well why are they getting taught
that? (AQ123)

However, the attitude questionnaire statistics show no significant overall differences in

responses between respondents born in Guernsey and non-natives. It is worth
emphasising this, as their presence is often cited as a factor in language decline.
School classes in Jrriais and Manx observed in 2012 included several children of
Portuguese or Polish origin, and some language planners see language instruction as a
way to unite a diverse population. Brian Stowell, who was the first Manx Language
Officer and is a respected authority on Manx, commented in an interview in 2012 with
the current Language Officer, Adrian Cain:

People mistakenly think that the revival of Manx will be harmed by people coming
here from the Philippines, Poland, and other countries . . . but the fact is the exact
opposite, because these people know exactly what the situation is over languages,
because theyve been living in situations where their own languages might be under
threat and theyre living in a very complicated shifting world which people here
havent experienced at all . . . other cultures around the world greatly respect people
who respect their own culture or respect a different culture and again this is a thing
which some people are still finding very hard to understand.11

Many incomers are keen to protect local distinctiveness, which in many cases is what
first attracted them to the island. Some immigrants to Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of
Man have learnt the indigenous languages and become active or influential in language-
related activities. One volunteer in an after-school Guernesiais session stated that non-
local parents especially had warmed to the idea of having something unique and local
(GF23). Another respondent commented:

It is noticeable that in the last ten years that the uneasy/negative attitudes to the
language are being dropped and ironically are not even present in the group of
incomers from the UK. (GE13)

An Isle of Man politician noted that new residents were generally more sympathetic to
local language. It may be that recent immigrants from the UK and Europe have been
influenced by the promotion of indigenous languages such as Welsh and Cornish, and are
bringing these attitudes with them. An interviewee of Cornish origin commented that she
would not wish Guernesiais to go the way of Cornish.12
A crucial factor in this apparent majority-population support for minority languages
may be that the majority population increasingly see local languages as part of their
heritage too, not only that of the dwindling number of native speakers. This is even true
of people who are not of island origin. In the Isle of Man especially, there is a conscious
effort to use local language as a unifying identity focus.
A teacher commented:

Theres a huge immigrant population mostly from England and a lot of them are
 looking for an alternative identity . . . traditionally, the English kids resented being
here, parents would talk about things they did growing up in Manchester . . . as a
Manx kid that always annoyed me . . .why dont you just embrace where you are?
. . . kids that have got a few words is all part of forging an identity here . . .

A Jersey language activist reported that in the survey of parents in 1998 to gauge
potential interest in learning Jrriais, the majority of folk who wanted their children to
learn Jrriais are not Jersey born people. A civil servant reported, my father came to
live in Jersey in 1970 and the first thing he went to was a Jrriais evening class.
As will be discussed in 5.4 and in Chapter 7, promoting an inclusive identity based on
indigenous language has implications not only for identity construction, but also for the
self-image of essentialist nationalists (in the Isle of Man) and the remaining traditional
speakers in Jersey and Guernsey, some of whom valorise their native-speaker status as
language owners or guardians.

5.4 Authenticity and purism

As Ferguson and I note, authenticity is a salient issue within endangered language
contexts, with the oldest speakers often being perceived by the speech community as
those who speak the language most correctly. However, this ideology overlooks evidence
that language changes over time; while each aging generation of speakers throughout the
sometimes centuries-long period of decline of endangered languages will be
acknowledged as the best speakers, and in Guernsey were traditionally consulted as
language authorities, the language of each of those generations will be different. In
addition, as noted in 4.3, aging speakers or those with few interlocutors undergo attrition,
so that people perceived as good speakers may produce mainly formulaic, restricted or
contact-influenced language. Thirdly, Ferguson and I emphasise that correctness is a
contested concept in a non-standardised language with considerable variation and a
history of Low diglossic status (Ferguson and Sallabank 2011). This section will consider
each of these factors. To avoid overlap, the processes and implications of standardisation
will be discussed in Chapter 6, while notions of authenticity and legitimacy will be
discussed here.

5.4.1 Language change

The processes of language change during what linguists call language obsolescence
(Dorian 1989; Taylor 1992; Jones 1998a; Jones 2001) are relatively well documented,
although from my research it appears that they are not well known to endangered
language community members. Views commonly heard in Guernsey include:

We speak the language of William the Conqueror.

 We speak just like our grandparents.
Guernesiais hasnt developed new terms since 1945.

Nevertheless, it is common for normal diachronic change to be speeded up during

language endangerment due to the reduction in the number of interlocutors and contexts
of use, and the infiltration of a dominant language into every communicative function.
A number of studies identify linguistic processes occurring during language
obsolescence (e.g. part 2 of Dorian (1989) and part 3 of Grenoble and Whaley (1998)).
Following Trudgill (1983: 110), Mhlhusler (1974) and Nettle and Romaine (2000), it is
possible to categorise common features of language change in contact situations as
follows:

Reduction: the loss of a component of the grammar without resulting complication

of another component to make up for this loss. Mhlhusler (1974) calls this
impoverishment.
Simplification or regularisation: an increase in regularity common in languages
learnt by non-native speakers.
Restriction: only used in certain contexts.
Inadequacy: do not have terms for all situations.

Many of these features are shared by the three languages of this case study. Broderick
(1984, 1991, 1999) gives examples of simplification and influence from English on what
he calls late Manx before the death of the last traditional speakers. Jones (2001, 2002)
cites widespread examples of language change in Jrriais and Guernesiais, including
lexical impoverishment (loss of vocabulary knowledge), calques (copying of
grammatical patterns), simplification of grammar and morphology, and English influence
on pronunciation.
Owing to the gaps in documentation and the timescale involved, there is a lack of
comparative data from pre-contact spoken varieties of Guernesiais and Jrriais (if such
ever existed), apart from a few recordings and a body of literature (see Jennings and
Marquis (2011)), which does not necessarily reflect spoken usage but the writers
perceptions of both actual and desirable usage (see 5.4.3). Evidence of long-standing
contact-induced changes over at least the last two centuries can be identified in Manx,
Guernesiais and Jrriais through this literature and in old recordings (as noted in Chapter
2, the first recordings of Manx were made at the beginning of the twentieth century).
Older speakers of Guernesiais, while maintaining that they speak like their grandparents,
admit that they find Mtiviers nineteenth-century poetry difficult to understand,
although this is also because Mtivier attempted to civilise Guernesiais by importing
French elements:

Its not your common-or-garden patois as they know it, you know its the sort of
 lite almost. (GF39)

Ferguson (2012) conducts an apparent time study in Guernsey by comparing

grammatical usage across generations. She correlates tokens of three grammatical
variables in Guernesiais, drawn from natural speech data, with the age of speakers. While
these correlations show how the grammar of the language has changed over successive
generations in the past half-century, they also reveal the extent to which intragenerational
variation is present within this language community.
People who do not know Guernesiais sometimes comment that the pronunciation
(especially the rhythm or prosody) sounds British,13 but again it cannot be assumed that,
for example, the tendency to stress the first syllable of words (another aspect that some
learners do not notice) comes from English influence rather than older Norse influence.
This is the case with the position of adjectives in Guernesiais and Jrriais, which are
placed before the noun more frequently than in French (especially colours).
Examples of change indicating language obsolescence in Guernesiais include:

The use of verbs in ways which are homonyms in English but not in French, e.g.
saver, to know (a fact) for to know (a person or language); travailler, to
work (employment, labour) generalised to cover work as in function where
French would use marcher:

Sht ologe travail pas

(That clock doesnt work)

Calques (literal translations) from English, especially with prepositions. Examples

from my data include:

parla atour (tchique chaose)

(to talk about [something])
I fao gardai hao l Guernesiais
(We must keep up Guernesiais)

Adjectival agreement: when describing a person, a speaker may make the

adjectival form agree with the gender and number of the person rather than of a
body part.
Lack of knowledge of full verb paradigms, leading to simplification of endings
(see Marquis and Sallabank 2013).

According to Marie Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008), Manx is

seen by some speakers of other Celtic languages as a deviation from Gaelic due to
influence from English. The publishers review of this manuscript concurs that
historically Manx was looked down on by some speakers of Irish as an Anglicised,
simplified form of Gaelic without a literary tradition. Clague points out, however, that
contact is common in language genesis and development (see also Mufwene (2001)).
Differences in language practices and attitudes between traditional speakers (or, in the
case of the Isle of Man, people who claim to have learnt Manx directly from traditional
speakers) and younger, new or neo-speakers have been noted for some time in other
minority languages around the world (Schmidt 1985; Bentahila and Davies 1993; Jones
1998a; Morgan 2000; Hornsby 2005; Urtaga 2005). In the Isle of Man there are
incipient signs that some children in Manx-medium primary education are developing
their own Bunscoill or youth variety of Manx, which again meets with varying
reactions including denial and disapproval (see below); some activists, however,
welcome the notion that children are making Manx their own.
Clague (2007a) investigated whether children in the Manx immersion primary school
(Bunscoill Ghaelgagh) were developing characteristics which differed from the usage of
second language adult speakers, and that of the last traditional Manx speakers. At the
time of the study, there were only four children at the school whose families used Manx
at home, so for most children the school was virtually their only opportunity for language
input. Clague found that in each class, one particularly adept child became a catalyst for
language change. As expected, the older children (aged 68) were creating a language of
their own. Some of the features found included:

a discourse marker used as a Manx equivalent of the relatively new English

quotative he/she was like (Tagliamonte and DArcy 2004);
a tendency to use periphrastic structures rather than synthetic ones. Clague
comments that this usage was also favoured by the last traditional Manx speakers,
but is considered inferior by some more purist current adult speakers.

There is also new terminology and usage developing because of the way language is
used in school, especially in Mathematics. According to head teacher Julie Matthews
(interviewed 7 November 2012), a decision had been taken to adapt the traditional Manx
counting system to be closer to the English system, which is easier to manipulate in
decimal calculations.
One Manx teacher opined that it might be possible that the system of initial consonant
mutations on nouns and adjectives, which is iconic of Celtic languages, might eventually
reduce or disappear in non-native-speaker Manx; this was strenuously denied by some
others. Supporters of Manx disagree as to the extent of ongoing change; the varying
opinions probably reflect the degree of purist views held (see 5.4.1).
Of course, endangered languages would have continued to change if they were still
vital: the English of teenagers is different from that of their grandparents too. Clague
(personal communication, 11 November 2008) comments that in any language children
speak differently from their parents, and adults speak differently from the way they spoke
as children; there will always be some people who resist new language practices. Several
informants commented that the Bunscoill cannot always wait for official terminology to
be decided by Coonceil ny Gaelgey [The Manx Gaelic Advisory Council] (see Chapter
6).
The call for papers for a conference entitled New Speakers of Minority Languages: A
Dialogue in Edinburgh in 201214 described the phenomenon as follows:

New speakers are defined here as individuals who use the language of a particular
minority linguistic community in everyday life but are not native speakers . . . New
speakers of indigenous minority languages are also emerging in situations where
traditional linguistic practices are changing and new ones appearing. In many parts
of the world, traditional communities of minority language speakers are being
eroded as a consequence of increased urbanization and economic modernization. At
the same time, new speakers are emerging as a result of revitalization efforts and
more favourable language policies, prompting some individuals to become speakers
of the minority language and to invest in its provision for the next generation.
The linguistic varieties being used by new speakers can often be significantly
removed from the norm associated with traditional native speakers. Different factors
may be at play here: new standardized forms may be used in educational and other
formal contexts, new terminology may be developed to make the language
functional in new domains, and new speakers language may show the influence of
their first language (typically the dominant state language) in terms of syntax and
pronunciation. New speakers often tend to be concentrated in urban areas that may
be very different in social and socioeconomic terms from the traditional rural
communities.
Because of underlying linguistic, sociolinguistic, socioeconomic, socio-
geographical and very often ideological differences between native and new
speakers, these groups can sometimes perceive themselves as being socially and
linguistically incompatible. This may lead to tensions between different minority
language speakers which can sometimes have a negative effect on the process of
linguistic revitalization.

Revitalisation in the Channel Islands has not yet reached the point where divergence is
a real (as opposed to a perceived) danger, although some community members express
concern about language change. As noted by Costa (forthcoming b) and Marquis and
Sallabank (forthcoming), the conflicts stem partly from differing views on authority in
language and who counts as a legitimate speaker.
The article by Le Cheminant (2001) cited in 4.4 is an example of someone who is
willing to express himself in Guernesiais in public despite being aware that he does not
have full productive mastery of all areas of grammar. People learning a new or heritage
language from scratch have few or no intuitions about its grammar or pronunciation, as
noted by Marcellesi (1983 [2003]).
When traditionalist Guernesiais and Jrriais supporters mention language change, they
are referring to convergence with English. They express worries that influence from
English or insufficiently acquired accuracy will lead to language change. For example:

No offence but I wouldnt say that youre good enough that your Guernsey French
is good enough to teach children its like the Ravigotteurs you see, theyre going
to change the language to teach it it wont be the Guernsey French we know.
(GF19a)

The Presidents Report for the year 2009 of LAssembllae dGuernsiais Guernsey
language association included the following comment:

I am also glad to report that lessons on Guernsey French are continuing in the
schools. We have a good band of teachers who are giving up their time to teach . . .
It is good to know that the children are taught the traditional Guernsiais. Not a new
way that some would like to introduce.15

In Jersey, Jrriais teaching is coordinated by LOffice du Jrriais. Most of the teaching

is done by the officers themselves, who are all highly proficient non-native speakers, as
are all Manx teachers.16 A few native speakers are employed as peripatetic Jrriais
teachers, but these are in their seventies at the time of writing and it is recognised that the
supply of native-speaker teachers is exhaustible. Nevertheless there are criticisms of the
Jrriais taught:

They cant pronounce it like I do for instance . . . if I tell you si bein aise dte veis
. . . Et dgarder not langage en allant pace qu lafthe ne va paon trop bein. Si
chest qu jpourrons pon pler le Jrriais . . . mais ya pas fort qui lplent. Il savent
et l[s]autes sont lapprendre, chest comme les mousses, i sont ichin apprendre et
i sont keen pour lapprendre mais quand il arrivent siez ieux, ya personne pour
garder lu langage en allant, chest pour chenna, mes mousses messerment, ils ne
plent pas achteu, ils savent bein . . . All that means, the young ones are keen to
learn but when they go home theyve got no-one to hold a conversation with them
therefore they forget til they meet to the class again . . . They [teachers] know
Jersey French better than many many . . . but when they come to talk, its not quite
le vrai Jrriais [real Jrriais], you know theres something in their tongue thats
turned to like English . . . I think its going to be the way for the children because
they were brought up speaking English so theyre going to have different accents.
What I hope we dont do in Jersey French is bastardise it its a seventeenth
century language and if we have to put in twenty-first century idioms, thats what
 they stay, so the language stays pure. (JE1)
I used to have an assistant [name] and her dad was a Jrriais speaker and he would
go into the shops in St Martin and if anybody whod learnt it in night class spoke
hed just shut up because he said it grated on him. Its not the same. (JE2)

Similar comments can be heard in the Isle of Man:

English does accumulate constantly whereas if you try and introduce something into
Manx, people say oh thats artificial! (Manx teacher 1)
When Brian started there was a letter to the paper saying that the Manx taught in
schools was not the genuine article. (Manx teacher 2)
I think the pronunciation is becoming anglicised and in a lot of the more modern
Manx that you will hear in the Bunscoill the Manx grammar is going out the
window quite a bit . . . [Language change] seems to be quite accelerated in some
cases. (Manx teacher 2)

This can lead to tensions between what is seen as traditional versus Bunscoill
Manx:

Quite often the Manx for GCSE and A-level differs considerably from what is being
used in the Bunscoill because I suppose were trying to stick more to the older
Manx really and the Manx in the textbooks whereas theyre using a language which
is much more vibrant probably but tends to have a lot of English influence in word
order and so on . . . its inevitable really. The number of homes where the parents
actually speak Manx with the children here is very small, two or three.

On the other hand, some would welcome an even faster pace of change. A parent of a
child at the Bunscoill commented:

We have an early edition of the First Thousand Words in Manx and theres some
words in there that they dont use those words theres a few weve noticed . . . it
may be an alternative, but certainly my boys dont use those words for those things
. . . there have been changes no doubt about it, the pace of it is so much faster
because its forced faster . . . its great.

The implications for language planning of such statements will be examined in

Chapter 7.
Compared to language decline or obsolescence, the ways in which languages change
in the process of language revitalisation are not well documented. An increasing number
of activist-linguists who support language revitalisation, such as Goodfellow (2009),
Kroskrity and Field (2009) and Goodfellow and Alfred (2002), see encouraging and
managing the creolised interlanguage (Selinker 1972) produced by second language
learners and reactivated latent speakers as the only way to maintain any kind of speaker
base for endangered languages, despite their speech being simplified and containing
many contact-induced features. Holton (2009) has suggested that managed creolisation
can make a language more accessible or attainable by learners, leading to more effective
acquisition; learners who attain higher levels of proficiency can then move on to more
complex authentic structures. As reported in Marquis and Sallabank (2013), in March
2010 an Anglophone informant who works in marketing/advertising suggested
popularising Guernesiais amongst the young by offering them a simplified language
that they could easily learn (bite size). Such an approach might also appeal to some
learners and potential learners who claim to find authentic Guernesiais too hard.
There are also some who feel that Jrriais with an English accent is better than no
Jrriais.

And . . . they all do their best . . . some of the seasoned old Jrriais people say, Oh
but the accent isnt quite the same, I dont know why the students are . . . And my
answer is you give it a go! (JE4: Jrriais teacher, 60s)
I will say to all Jrriais speakers how would you say X? So Im not leading them.
Would you say it this way and theyll say definitely not . . . theres a lovely one,
the past present: this morning I went to X school A matin je fus . . . you cant say
that. Hier je fus. A matin jetais [Yesterday I was. This morning I was] . . . ever so
subtle. . . its unfair to expect them [non-native-speaker teachers] to know frankly
what they do is unbelievable . . . occasionally there are words that come out that are
not in the right context its very subtle . . . This is the future though, there will be
more non-native speakers. Its a view I took early on look were either going to
save the language and accept . . . or no language . . . in fairness theyre not going to
get it all right. (JE5: language supporter, 60s)

It is recognised that, as discussed in 2.2.3, the Manx of the last traditional speakers
contained numerous contact features and does not necessarily constitute the best model
for learners:

I would imagine it must have changed quite considerably although we have

recordings of native speakers their Manx was really quite corrupt . . . the
pronunciations was probably ok it was more the grammar that was bad.

This raises the question of whether it is better to retain at least part of a language in
use (or to let it evolve), or to let it die with its morphological boots on (Dorian 1978:
608). More research is needed in the area of language change in revitalisation, widening
the scope of comparisons between the usage of neo-speakers and traditional speakers.
Insights might also be gained from findings in second language acquisition research,
although this tends to focus on major standardised languages, especially English, which
unlike most minority languages have a large number of potential interlocutors for
learners, and widely available, corpus-based reference and learning materials. Research
into the revitalised language might also be informed by studies of native vs. non-native-
speaker usage (e.g. Davies 2003; Houghton and Rivers 2013) and of English as a lingua
franca (Jenkins 2002; Timmis 2002; Seidlhofer 2006; Mauranen and Ranta 2009), which
includes discussion of language ownership (see 5.4.4). Another fruitful line of research
is being carried out into the experiences and strategies of latent speakers re-activating or
re-learning their ancestral languages (Basham 1999; Basham and Fathman 2003).
A topic which links language change with domain expansion is the development of
new terminology for languages which were traditionally used in restricted domains. Like
any language planning, this can happen in a managed or unplanned manner. Chapter 6
will discuss the mechanisms by which it is attempted in the three islands.

5.4.2 Nostalgia: a language of the past

Many speakers of Guernesiais and Jrriais express emotional attachment to the
languages:

Guernsey French is wonderful . . . peoples eyes dance when they speak it. (GF17)
If I was kidnapped like Terry Waite or on a desert island, although Im a Christian
and I should say Id like the Bible, what would mean the most to me would be a
recording of someone speaking Guernsey French. (GF33)

For many this attachment is also to a bygone culture, especially as part of a

remembered golden era of their childhood. The adjudicator at the Guernsey French
Eisteddfod in 2011, while giving his marks in English, described Guernesiais as:

the language of our fathers, the language of our grandfathers, great-grandfathers,

great-great-grandfathers way back in the hundreds of years preceding ourselves. It
was the language that we were brought up in, . . . and our parents, our mothers, our
fathers used to tell us off in Guernsey French . . .

A Jersey interviewee (a native speaker of French) recounted having been to a funeral

where a lot of older people were present speaking only Jrriais amongst themselves
(JE06).17 The informant suggested that this might have been a reassuring experience for
the speakers, representing a return to childhood and a sense of comfort. Another Jersey
interviewee commented:

You see now the way the world is with a bit of recession quite often we look
inwards dont we . . . talking about food . . . where people go back to more
traditional foods because its like a comfort, and perhaps there could be something
 in that in languages as well . . . (JE18)

Several informants have told me that when relatives were dying, they reverted to their
first language. For many older speakers, the language is connected with memories of
loved ones who have now passed away perhaps bittersweet memories make for
ambivalent attitudes. One respondent reported that when his brother was dying he only
got a reaction by speaking to him in Guernesiais:

With my brothers when we were having a fun evening we used to tell each other a
lot of stories which were really funny and I always meant for us to record it
when we were having one of those sessions but it never actually happened and
its lost now. (GF13)

In the Isle of Man, Manx is consciously promoted as a living language: for example,
the title of a supporters newsletter is Gaelg Vio (Living Manx).18 A former Language
Officer commented:

And theres also the issue of if its heritage looking backwards . . . I know the
description of our language is heritage languages, but Im not awfully keen, fond of
that . . . heritage implies something of the past whereas I think language planning
implies the future. (Phil Gawne, personal communication, 4 November 2008)

There are, however, some inconsistencies in how Manx is presented to potential

learners and supporters. On the one hand, Gaelg Vio highlights the use of Manx in non-
traditional domains such as a graphic novel, cartoon films, a supermarket in-store radio
and a police community safety booklet, as well as the blog which hosts the online
newsletter. On the other hand, Manx is frequently linked with traditional (or perhaps neo-
traditional) Celtic culture: the graphic novel retells a mediaeval Irish legend (an epic
Irish tale of love and jealousy), and the cartoons feature characters from Manx
mythology (although often discussing modern topics).19 The headline banner of an
earlier version of the aforementioned Manx learners blog, Cowag (Chat), was illustrated
with a photo of an old man talking to two younger ones, which might risk reinforcing the
older stereotype of Manx as a language of old people.20 As mentioned in Chapter 2,
although all Manx speakers are now new speakers, there is a discourse of continuity
which implies that legitimacy as a speaker still relies to a large extent on native
speakerism (see 5.4.4).
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in nostalgia for a bygone age, nor in the fact that
regret at language loss does not necessarily entail any remedial action in the form of
passing the heritage language on to a new generation in an effective manner. However,
when combined with fear of language change, nostalgia can merge into possessiveness,
as discussed in the next two sections.

5.4.3 Purism and correctness

As mentioned above, many informants associate language change with decline. Some
also distinguish between natural language change and what they perceive as lack of care
leading to a promulgation of incorrect usage. One Jersey campaigner mentioned as a
particular bugbear incorrect grammatical genders on signs, complaining that even when
the correct version had been supplied by LOffice du Jrriais, and mistakes pointed out,
theyve put La Port, La Braye . . . the hospital has Le Restaurant Bon Sant because
somebody has decided thats how its going to be . . . they had chosen La X so they
phoned up and said but its Le X, the girl in the office said yes but the boss thinks that La
looks better. When I asked, Is it language development or is it plain wrong?, the
respondent replied Its language massacre.21 As noted by Costa (forthcoming b), this
points to the existence of idealised varieties of minority languages, citing what the
French sociologist of language Pierre Achard (1982) called the myth of the lost
language.
As mentioned earlier, it seems from research by myself and Marquis (Marquis and
Sallabank forthcoming) that ingrained ideologies in some sections of the Guernesiais
language community regarding High and Low languages and correctness are largely
impervious to the shift in public opinion reported in 5.2. French is still seen by some
community members (especially, but not exclusively, older ones) as the correct,
prestigious form. Convergence towards French has been observed in contexts which
might be perceived as formal, including Guernesiais lessons and cultural performances,
which together form the mainstay of current voluntary efforts to save the language.
Convergence has also been observed in linguistic elicitation or grammaticality judgement
sessions, where informants intuitions of grammar and vocabulary are influenced by a
perception of Guernesiais as incorrect and French as correct. Convergence can occur
when a researcher asks people who no longer speak Guernesiais on a day-to-day basis for
a particular word: increasingly the French is provided, either unconsciously or
consciously (well, in good French its . . .). This might also indicate a lack of clear
language boundaries in speakers minds.
The covert inferiority of Guernesiais and Jrriais, which contrasts with public rhetoric
about heritage and distinctiveness, may also underlie their exclusion from the mainstream
school curriculum and the lack of effectiveness of extra-curricular teaching (see Chapter
6): even influential language supporters express the view that teaching Guernesiais may
adversely affect students achievement in French, which is deemed to be of greater
importance.
Whether as a result of imperfect acquisition, attrition or linguistic insecurity, even the
language of the oldest generation of speakers, commonly considered embodiments of the
norm or as language authorities, presents evidence of inter-speaker variation and
challenges ideologies of authenticity and correctness (Ferguson and Sallabank 2011).
Linguists too sometimes assume that traditional CI Norman usage would have
followed French grammatical patterns, e.g. in the use of tenses after when. This cannot,
however, be assumed, as grammar writers such as De Garis (1985) and Tomlinson
(2008) tended to follow intuition (from French-based education) rather than corpora of
language in use; and nineteenth-century literary writers such as Mtivier (1831, 1843,
1866, 1883; Boland 1885; Lebarbenchon 1980, 1988) were tempted to civilise
Guernesiais by importing French elements. Revealing evidence of variation and change
is not necessarily welcomed by traditionalists.
In the Isle of Man, revivalists have had more of a free rein to develop Manx, since
there are no longer any traditional speakers. However, as seen in 5.1 and 5.4.1, there are
still tensions regarding correctness and influence from English. Language mixing is also
frowned on: for example, the usage of some highly proficient Manx speakers is criticised
because of the insertion of English discourse markers (so, well, etc.), although this is
common in language contact situations.

5.4.4 Language ownership and legitimacy

In my research in Guernsey, perceptions of authenticity were found to be linked to
issues of language ownership and transmission. As in other areas of applied linguistics,
when establishing who has the authority to teach Guernesiais (or who makes the best
teacher), the notion of native speakerhood is seen as more salient than frequency of
use or teaching qualifications or experience. Current rhetoric in Guernsey reinforces the
assumption that the indigenous language belongs to native and traditional speakers,
who see themselves as its guardians but who, however, are using it less and less.
As discussed in Marquis and Sallabank (2013), the volunteer teachers of Guernesiais
are mainly in their sixties and seventies and are generally considered to be native
speakers because Guernesiais was one of their primary languages of socialisation, which
is deemed to endow them with authority and expertise. However, native speakerhood
covers a variety of levels and types of proficiency and, as described in Chapter 4, most of
these people do not speak Guernesiais regularly in their everyday lives, their receptive
skills are higher than their productive skills and the language they produce is largely
formulaic. As in many language teaching contexts, being a native speaker is viewed as
a more legitimate qualification for teaching the language than having been through the
process of learning it, and thus potentially being in a better position to explain it, as
described by Medgyes (1992) in relation to English (Ferguson and Sallabank 2011;
Marquis and Sallabank forthcoming). Although this trend is not as pronounced in Jersey
and the Isle of Man, especially as there are no traditional speakers of Manx, concerns are
still voiced about notions of correctness, as noted above.
As we note in Marquis and Sallabank (forthcoming), becoming a teacher of
Guernesiais, even on only a voluntary basis for half an hour a week, valorises the
knowledge and status of native speakers who for most of their lives have suffered from
the negative attitudes described earlier in this chapter. Most of the volunteer teachers did
not transmit Guernesiais to their own children because of these widespread societal
attitudes. Being involved in teaching Guernesiais thus provides a powerful boost to their
own self-image on two grounds: firstly by affirming their language expertise, and
secondly by enabling them to assuage any guilt they might feel at not having taught
Guernesiais to their own children and grandchildren. Furthermore, the sessions provide
an opportunity for social interaction between teachers, and between teachers and pupils.
For some it also provides opportunities they had not previously thought possible: one
volunteer recounted how she had always wanted to be a teacher, but her education had
been disrupted because of the German occupation of Guernsey in the Second World War
and she did not have the qualifications required. Volunteering to help in after-school
Guernesiais classes thus enabled her to fulfil a long-held dream.
Marquis and I suggest (2013) that from discourses such as were reported in Section
5.4.1:

[w]e can discern an unwillingness (which may be subconscious) among some

speakers to hand the language to the next generation, especially in a form/manner
which is attractive to younger learners, for fear that theyre going to change the
language to teach it it wont be the Guernsey French we know. For these
speakers, fear of language change is greater than the fear of language death. This
may even perhaps manifest itself in unwillingness to share full competence, and
subconsciously work against effective language teaching among some volunteer
teachers. (GE32)

Some would-be learners of Guernesiais have reported an unwillingness on the part of

native speakers to share the language: Actually no, they didnt want to talk to me
because Im English. Seriously . . . the only person who used it by choice freely willingly
would be X.
As Marquis and I observe (2013), language-related activities in Guernsey are
dominated by a vocal and influential minority who perceive themselves to be guardians
of a traditional form of the language (cf. Dorian 1994c; Hinton and Ahlers 1999), and
who also claim to represent the speaker community. The term traditionalist is used to
denote a point of view which rejects what is perceived as convergence with English and
instead leans towards French, especially in terms of spelling. Notions of correctness and
legitimacy are linked to perceptions of who has the authority to decide how language
should be used, and what form(s) it should take. This positioning is related to notions of
native-speaker status, which means that claims to linguistic authority are not
necessarily related to fluency or practices. Grenoble and Whaley (2006) and Evans
(2001) distinguish between language ownership and language knowledge:
 Language ownership has to do with the relationship between language and social
group membership . . . In many communities, the language owners are the ones
who are perceived, or who perceive themselves, as having the right to determine the
future of the language by virtue of their social position in society. They possess
authority to state what counts as the authentic or real variety of the language. The
decision of who has control over language revitalization is often a contentious
matter, which hinges on language ownership, a notion that may not have clear
boundaries in a given community or communities.
(Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 166)

According to Bourdieu (1977: 650):

[Legitimate language] is uttered by a legitimate speaker, i.e. by the appropriate

person, as opposed to the impostor . . .; it is uttered in a legitimate situation, i.e. on
the appropriate market . . . and addressed to legitimate receivers; it is formulated in
the legitimate phonological and syntactic forms . . . except when transgressing these
norms is part of the legitimate definition of the legitimate producer.

The issue at stake here is who is considered a legitimate speaker, what is legitimate
usage and who has the right to decide. Costa (forthcoming) argues that:

a new speaker is not simply a new speaker, someone who has recently learnt a
language. A new speaker is a term that comes with a loading of moral and political
issues about what it means to be a genuine member of a given group, about what a
language is or should be, and about who has the right to define who gets to use the
language or not. This is particularly the case in minority language groups . . .

This is also an issue for major international languages such as English, where non-
native speakers also now outnumber native speakers (Crystal 2003), as Jenkins (2007)
has found.
Costa compares the association of ordinary (or traditional) speakers with descriptors
such as rural, old, working class, and representing continuity, tradition, authenticity
with those associated with new speakers: urban, young, middle class, rupture,
artificiality.
The parallels with Kuters (1989: 76) symbolic values enshrined in the use of Breton
(as a traditional local language) and French (the national language, enshrining modernity
and education) are striking. Language ownership and the claiming of legitimacy are thus
another aspect of the tendency identified by Romaine (2002a) to reproduce traditional
hegemonic language hierarchies (see Chapter 1). They reinforce Schieffelin et al.s
(1998: 17) observation that
 movements to save minority languages are often structured, willy-nilly, around the
same received notions of language that have led to their oppression . . . language
activists find themselves imposing standards, elevating literate forms and uses, and
negatively sanctioning variability in order to demonstrate the reality, validity, and
integrity of their languages.

Costa (forthcoming b) poses a question that will resonate with many who are used to
minority language settings:

Why are children and learners both eagerly expected to learn minority languages,
while at the same time very often negatively evaluated in their actual practice of
said languages? What ideological mechanisms underpin such attitudes?

Costa illustrates how pupils at an Occitan-medium school negotiate their own notions
of language-related legitimacy through, for example, seniority, length of time spent
learning the language, ease/speed of language learning; this has relevance to the situation
in the Isle of Man. Costa also points out that academics and teachers play a particularly
powerful role as gatekeepers, as they tend to set norms and need to construct their own
legitimacy with respect to native speakers.

5.5 Conclusions
The research presented in this chapter indicates a sea change in attitudes towards
indigenous languages from the late twentieth century on. In all three islands, public
discourse now supports at least the idea of local language being an important element of
building a distinct local identity.
If the aim is for an endangered language to survive as a living language, it needs new
speakers. As time takes its toll, the last generation of fluent traditional speakers will
disappear, as it did in the Isle of Man by the 1970s.
Manx is promoted not only as a symbol of distinctiveness, but as a living language, as
noted in 5.4.2; and it is notable that rhetoric is backed up by practice, in that there is a
small community of people who use Manx in much of their personal and business lives.
In the Channel Islands, however, it is not clear to what extent the broad public support
for the indigenous languages involves their continued use for communicative purposes,
since to date there has been no public discussion regarding the aims of language policy,
and no ideological clarification (Fishman 2001; see Chapter 3). This will be discussed
further in Chapter 7.
 6 Language planning and policy: bottom-up and
top-down

6.1 Language policy and planning for small endangered

languages

6.1.1 Background and trends

As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 3, it is now accepted in language policy studies that
planning and policy take place at all levels of society, from the individual and family
level to supranational organisations (Baldauf 2004; Spolsky 2004; Shohamy 2005;
McCarty 2011). Language policy is now viewed broadly as including language
practices, perceptions and ideologies at all levels of society. Chapter 4 looked at
language practices on small island jurisdictions in the British Isles, while Chapter 5
examined language attitudes and how they relate to community members identity. This
chapter looks at language policy, planning and management, comparing the processes of
formulation and implementation of language policies in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of
Man. In what follows I try to distinguish between top-down language policy and
planning and bottom-up practices and attitudes. However, there is inevitably overlap,
especially in small island jurisdictions with relatively tight social networks, where
speakers and promoters of Guernesiais, Jrriais and Manx are found in all walks of life
including the civil service and the judiciary and where language activists can and do run
for political office, and/or take up employment in government-funded posts promoting
the local languages (e.g. as Language Officers or teachers). As mentioned in Chapter 1, it
can be argued that small, highly endangered languages present a different set of
challenges from minority languages with a larger or more vital speaker base and a higher
level of government support (such as Frisian, Irish or Galician) for both bottom-up and
top-down policy-makers.
Baldauf (19931994, 2004) draws a distinction between macro, meso and micro
perspectives of language planning. According to this framework, macro-level language
planning refers to initiatives at polity level (state, national, major administrative area).
However, in the micro-polities considered in this book ( hIfearnin 2007b), the nation-
state is almost irrelevant, government is both local and international, and the island
language communities do not consider themselves minorities within a state.
Meso-level language planning is carried out by institutions and associations as well as
regional and local administrative areas: this might include much of the planning in the
Isle of Man or Jersey, where a large part of strategic planning and implementation of
indigenous language maintenance and revitalisation is delegated to quasi-non-
governmental organisations such as foundations and trusts. It might also include
voluntary language societies. A micro perspective refers to language use in particular
circumstances, particularly schools, but also businesses and other institutions (which
highlights a grey area between meso and micro levels).
Missing from this framework is the individual and family level, which plays such a
large part in language endangerment discourse, and which should of course be included
under micro language planning. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) note that in sociology, the
terms macro and micro refer to social structure versus interaction respectively. While this
distinction is not altogether clear since interaction also shapes social structure, the
amount of social interaction in a language between individuals is indicative of its vitality
and is an important aspect of language practices, as well as of agency in language
planning.
In the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, government support for the revitalisation of
indigenous languages has chiefly taken the form of appointing or funding Language
Officers, although with differing remits. My research has examined the roles of the
officers, the policy-making process, and the impact and effectiveness of introducing a
degree of officialdom into language revitalisation.
In principle, part of the Language Officers task is to develop policy strategies and to
coordinate planning and implementation, liaising with voluntary bodies. In practice,
however, there are numerous obstacles, both at governmental and at community level.
As described in Chapter 2, there are areas of commonality between the three islands,
yet there are also distinct differences, both in factors contributing to and in the focus of
language policies. Inter-island rivalries and the sense of distinctiveness may also
encourage divergence in policies as well as disregard for external expertise. This chapter
looks at interactions between unofficial attitudes and official policies, and also examines
language planning measures undertaken by voluntary and commercial organisations, both
with and without reference to government policies. The chapter also examines case
studies of language-related activities including school programmes, adult lessons and
corpus planning, as well as associated materials. Interviews were conducted in each
island with politicians, civil servants (including the Language Officers), language
activists, language speakers and learners (and their parents where relevant), business
people and members of the general public. In this chapter the visibility and audibility of
each language in the linguistic landscape are also discussed, as well as the trend for
private- sector companies to use local language for marketing and branding.
In all three islands official language policies, linguistic heritage is given symbolic
importance and is seen as an opportunity to create a distinctive unifying island identity,
although not exclusively for indigenous islanders. As mentioned in Chapter 5, such a
focus need not necessarily include the actual use of the language or developing a cohort
of proficient speakers to replace the dwindling numbers of traditional native speakers.
Chapter 7 will discuss this in relation to ideological clarification (Fishman 1991, 2001) in
language revitalisation.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, a broad interpretation of an endangered language
community can include government-sponsored language planners, especially in micro-
states. In addition, whether they speak the indigenous languages or not, politicians and
civil servants are not immune to public opinion, societal ideologies and attitude shifts.
Policy-makers also have other motivations such as the maintenance of political
independence as well as competing calls on limited budgets not to mention votes at the
next election.
The category language planners can therefore include anyone who takes a decision
about language status or practices including unconscious decisions, which are of course
influenced by societal trends and ideologies. However, as this includes virtually
everyone, in this chapter I will focus on people who actively attempt to influence
language attitudes or practices: members of language societies, language activists and
campaigners, as well as civil servants and politicians.

6.1.2 Policy-making at different levels

At an international level, UNESCO has become very supportive of endangered
languages, as can be seen from their website on intangible cultural heritage.1 The
European Union also supports linguistic diversity and funds measures to support
indigenous minority languages in Europe.2 As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, the nation-state
and international/EU levels are not immediately relevant in the contexts of the small
island jurisdictions in this book. If there is a degree of autonomy or regional government
in a country, language policy may be formulated at regional level, which in this instance
means the island governments.
I note in Sallabank (2011b) that institutions also have language policies, which may be
unstated for instance, at my university our lectures are generally in standard English
(except perhaps when teaching another language), and we expect students to write essays
in reasonable academic English, even when discussing other languages, dialects and
registers. A school will have a language policy in terms of which language(s) are used as
the medium of education, and which languages are taught as subjects, although these
policies may also be set at regional or national level.
A local speech community will undoubtedly have a language policy which regulates
norms and expectations of language use, but which will probably not be explicit.
Community language policy usually just happens as a result of social interaction,
societal norms and unspoken ideologies (see Chapter 3). Social groups or networks are
major drivers of language policy for members of those groups, but as noted in Chapter 4,
the social networks of traditional speakers are unravelling (or have already done so),
which affects language maintenance (Sallabank 2010a). It might be thought that policy
might take such demographic factors into account, but it does not necessarily do so.
It is usual for urbanisation and internal migration to be a factor in language shift, and
indigenous languages tend to fall out of use first in urban centres. As small islands,
Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man do not have major cities, but the towns are now
almost entirely English-speaking, and have been for nearly a century. This has
implications with regard to standardisation of the local languages (see 6.4): Joseph
(1987) observes that a standard language is often based on the variety used by an urban
intelligentsia, which is missing in these contexts.
At community level, an important sector with regard to language policies for
endangered languages is that of organised groups who support saving the language. In
the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, the efforts of voluntary groups have been vital in
raising awareness of language loss, and in persuading the islands governments to
support the indigenous languages. They will be discussed specifically in 6.3.
Families too have language policies, which again are probably not conscious, unless,
for instance, parents from different language backgrounds have discussed whether or not
they want to bring up their children bilingually. Such conscious decisions are relatively
uncommon, but of course language practice in the family is a key factor in language
maintenance and language endangerment. Where one parents main language has lower
status than the other, and general societal attitudes mitigate against multilingualism, it is
less likely that the minority language will be maintained, especially if the parent from a
minority-language background is bilingual in the majority language, as has tended to be
the case in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. Given that family language
transmission plays such a key role in measures of language endangerment and vitality, it
is surprising that there are few studies into family language policies.
In family language transmission a mothers input is of high importance. In variationist
sociolinguistics, women are usually seen as more likely to use higher-status varieties,
although they are also more likely to be involved in domestic domains. Womens
attitudes are thus crucial for language maintenance, yet not all researchers even gather
their views. For example, a book on Motivation in Language Planning and Language
Policy discusses gender only with regard to challenging sexism as reflected in language,
not as a factor in motivation for language maintenance (Ager 2001: 8993). Researchers
who do take gender into account note that in a bilingual context, women may seek
higher-status partners and thus promote language shift: cultural changes were motivated
in addition by a desire to change social status. Women, who were affected strongly by
the drudgery of farm work, were the first to seek escape from a Breton identity
(Williamson 1991: 79). This tendency was also documented by Susan Gal in a
Hungarian-speaking area of Austria in the process of language shift (Gal 1978, 1979):
All of the youngest women use more German than any of the youngest men . . . This
greater rejection of Hungarian by young women can be seen as the linguistic expression
of their rejection of peasant life (1979: 167). Williamson also notes that children often
refuse to answer parents in a minority language, which forces women, the main
caregivers, to speak the majority language.
As individuals, we all have language policies, which again may or may not be
conscious. We may, for instance, decide that we want to learn a heritage language or a
language of wider communication. Young people may wish to attend a university in a
particular country (as noted, there is very little higher education on the islands). At all
levels it is important to be aware of the kinds of choices that are being made. I use the
word choices in a broad sense, because as mentioned in Chapter 3, choices are not
necessarily freely made. Many people experience constraints regarding the language(s)
or varieties they use in particular contexts (again, both overtly and covertly): for
example, people may feel the need to learn a particular language or dialect in order to get
a job or education.
Individual policies may not necessarily be logical or effective: for example, people
may attend a language class but not devote sufficient time to practice, which is a case of
covert policies defeating overt ones. Several informants have claimed that they want to
learn the local language but that they have been unable to for some reason or other. One
questionnaire respondent admitted:

Regrettably I am one of the worst type of hypocrites! I wish the language to remain
a part of the islands culture but find excuses not to do something about it myself.
(AQ187)

A discourse of difficulty is often evoked in such contexts: Manx is seen as intrinsically

difficult for Anglophones because of its Celtic features (e.g. word order, periphrastic
structures, consonant mutation), while Guernesiais is seen as incomprehensible and
hard to pronounce even the name Guernesiais is usually mispronounced by
Anglophones. In addition, there are relatively few opportunities for adults to learn
Jrriais and Guernesiais; there are no published courses for adults learning the latter.

6.2 Voluntary groups and grass-roots support

An Isle of Man politician identified voluntary groups and key individuals as having
played a fundamental role in the maintenance of Manx in the period following the death
of the last traditional speakers, and in campaigning for its revitalisation. At an
interpersonal level, language activists used Manx among themselves, in their families
and with their children; at a local level they built up networks of speakers and language
associations; and in order to interact with public policy they obtained teaching
qualifications (some had these already), carried out political campaigning and lobbied
politicians, in some cases running for office themselves. As mentioned in Chapter 2, in a
relatively small island community the dividing line between official and unofficial
policy-making may be blurred, as the distinction between private individuals and
public/political life is also blurred. There are no political parties in Jersey and Guernsey,
and in the Isle of Man, too, most politicians are independents. In all three islands
individual language supporters or organisations have been contracted by government
agencies to formulate or implement language policy.
Nevertheless, although voluntary groups dedicated to language support have existed in
each island since the late nineteenth century, government support was slow in
forthcoming, despite increasingly positive attitudes among the population from the late
twentieth century on, as discussed in Chapter 4.
Voluntary groups and language societies come in a variety of sizes and formats. They
have differing degrees of cohesion and formulated aims, and membership may be formal
or informal. Different groups may have varying emphases for their activities: some
examples from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man include music, dance, socialisation
for traditional speakers, socialisation for learners, fundraising, the preservation of written
material, a particular activity such as walking or sport, the organisation of a cultural
festival, or the promotion of the teaching of the language to new speakers. In a small
community, there is frequent overlap in membership between these groups. Such groups
often include influential or charismatic figures who are considered to be authorities on
the language or spokespeople for their communities on language policy.
Language-interest groups can be divided broadly between those founded by and for
traditional language community members, which, as described in Chapter 4, tend to cater
for older age groups; and groups founded by and for learners or new speakers, which
may have a language acquisition element. In the Channel Islands there are also
philological sections of local societies dedicated to local natural history or scientific
study.
An example of the former type is LAssemblie dJrriais. A member explained:

The aim is basically to preserve a lot of our traditions. Its a social group we have
a function monthly, an annual lunch . . . in January we have a little concert . . . in
February we had bingo; March is annual lunch . . . in April theres a spring
Christian service, one year Church of England, one year Methodist led by a member
of the Assemblie. (JE16)

In all three islands, grass-roots campaigning was instrumental in creating a political

climate in which government support for language revitalisation became seen as
desirable. However, voluntary groups often do not have well-defined long- and short-
term goals, or clearly stated and agreed understandings of what saving a language
means to them. In addition, aims or ideologies may or may not coincide with language
practices, especially when it comes to speaking a language at group meetings. In
addition, although there is overlap in membership, there are also rivalries between
language campaigners (individuals and groups).
As I discuss in Sallabank (2005), awareness-raising by enthusiast groups plays a key
role in the early stages of language revitalisation. The attitude shift discussed in Chapter
5 would not have been possible without decades of efforts by dedicated language
supporters, nor would the degree of official support now apparent. But in all three
islands, there are signs that voluntary activism may reduce as official support grows,
which could be problematic if official policy changes or funding dries up.3 For example,
in the Isle of Man parents who decided to bring up their children through Manx
successfully lobbied for state-funded Manx-medium education; but although the number
of pupils at the school has grown tenfold since its inception, teachers report that
relatively few families are using Manx in the home. In Jersey and Guernsey, members of
traditional language associations are aging and reducing their activities, while in
Guernsey, volunteering to teach Guernesiais in extra-curricular classes takes up virtually
all the time and energy of most active language supporters. The Jersey interviewee above
continued:
JE16: We used to have a vast choir but theyre getting older so the choir mostly consists of
the tudiants [learners].
INTERVIEWER: Is this all in Jrriais, all the activities?
JE16: Yes. Weve had to leave English come in because some people dont speak fluent
enough Jrriais. But oh yes, we do this in Jrriais. And our meetings as much as
possible.
Campaigning with little overt effect can be disheartening; gaining official support
takes some of the burden off volunteers and motivates them by recognising their
contribution. As with all voluntary efforts, it is not always possible for individuals to
continue long-term due to other commitments and burn-out. Some people have been
involved in language support activities for many years and have seen numbers attending
functions dwindle as the traditional speaker base ages. In one or two cases,
disheartenment has led speakers to use Guernesiais less in the traditional phatic domain.
Brian Stowell, the first Manx Language Officer (who held office from 1992 to 1996),
commented in November 2008 that the advances that had been made were directly due to
government funding, which is however mainly applied through non-governmental
organisations staffed by enthusiasts (see 6.3). A teacher commented that having
independent management had advantages:

In a way its good because weve been able to develop the school very much from a
bottom-up movement its not ever been something that somebody in the
Department of Education has said we must have a Manx-speaking school. No its
completely its come from the bottom. (MA19)

In the initial stages of language revitalisation, public opinion and private initiatives are
ahead of official policy. But most campaigners have little knowledge of linguistics,
sociolinguistics or language planning theory, although some informants report having
been inspired to read literature on linguistics and sociolinguistics. There have also been
fruitful links made between language-related groups and individuals in the three islands
and elsewhere. Government support can encourage the professionalisation of language
planning, in these cases through participation in intergovernmental networks such as the
British-Irish Council (see Chapter 2), which share expertise and good practice.

6.3 Official support for endangered languages

There is widespread debate about the desirability and utility of official support for
endangered language revitalisation. Cooper (1989) contrasts the success of the
revitalisation of Mori with the top-down government policies on Irish which were
prevalent until the late twentieth century, which are generally seen as less successful. In
New Zealand the initiative for the revitalisation program has come from the Maoris
themselves, whereas in Ireland the government promoters of maintenance made no
serious attempt to promote the enthusiasm of people of the Gaeltacht (the areas where
Irish is spoken) themselves. The initiative came from outside (Cooper 1989: 161).
Nevertheless, Spolsky (2004: 198 and personal communication), also commenting on
Mori revitalisation, sees eventual government recognition and support as essential for
success; and Edwards and Newcombe (2005a: 135) note that in a growing number of
cases, activism has led to protective legislation. Bourdieu (1991) and others argue that
government recognition increases the perceived value of a previously low-status
language. Romaine (2002b: 2) notes that because official policies banning or restricting
the use of certain languages have been seen as agents of assimilation, . . . it is no wonder
that hopes of reversing language shift have so regularly been pinned on them. She cites
Skutnabb-Kangas (1999: 312), who maintains that unsupported coexistence mostly . . .
leads to minority languages dying.
On the other hand, Romaine (2002a) suggests that relying on official support can hand
control of an endangered language to structures which originally threatened it.
Williamson (1991), Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1998) and Fennell (1981) warn that
official support cannot save a language without community commitment. Fennell points
out that despite government support, Irish continues to decline. Evaluating the reasons,
Fennell describes how after Irish independence in the 1920s it was assumed that state
bureaucracy could save the Gaeltacht, with little consultation of local people or
representation of their views in decision-making. There was no attempt to foster positive
attitudes towards the language. Dorian (1987: 66) notes that compulsory Irish created
aversion towards the language; thanks to links with Ireland, Adrian Cain, Manx
Language Officer, is aware of this and speaks out against compulsory Manx.
Nevertheless, Dorian (1987: 64) claims that official attempts at language support
invariably do have beneficial effects for the community involved, both economic and in
terms of self-confidence, citing the example of the Faroe Islands. Conversely, Adler
(1977: 100) asserts that in some cases persecution has helped languages to survive, by
creating a resistance movement for which the language is a symbol; it can be argued that
this was the case for Basque in Spain, where language was always an integral element of
the independence movement (Urla 2012). In the Isle of Man, language activism and
nationalist political activism (including direct action) have been linked by some
campaigners, especially in the 1970s:

Urged on by the common perception that Government and new residents alike were
treating the Manx as second-class citizens, a number of Manx people and some
incomers looked to the Manx language and its associated culture to re-establish a
strong Manx identity.
(Gawne 2002: 2)

Paulston (1987: 156) suggests that learning a regional language can sometimes be a
form of conscious or unconscious protest . . . it is significant that in Occitanie, the area
that boasts the greatest number of learners of Occitan is the Aude: the most
disadvantaged department in the region. In southern France, language activism is linked
to social movements and broadly left-wing political activism (Lafont 1992, 1997; Costa
2013), whereas in many other places, including the Channel Islands, concern with
language issues may be seen as a middle-class concern as it is less vital than more
concrete problems: one Guernsey Anglophone commented that the only people who
want to save the language are intellectuals (GE12). However, a Guernsey language
activist (GF07) suggested that the teaching of local culture in schools had been
deliberately discouraged in order to inhibit nationalist sentiment. Another respondent
commented:

The image Guernsey is trying to project is futuristic, to attract finance is there a

conspiracy theory that its not in Guernseys best financial interests to promote
Guernsey French commercially? There are no great moves by the States to support
it. I saw something in Jersey harbour but you dont see anything like that here.4
(GE16)

Another reason why some language campaigners bypass official channels is the lack
of effective implementation. Romaine (2002b) points out that simply conferring official
status does not reinstate intergenerational transmission: it is far easier to establish
schools and declare a language official than to get families to speak a threatened
language to their children . . . Many language-policy statements are reactive ad hoc
declarations lacking a planning element (2002b: 3). Romaine gives examples of policies
such as legislation to protect Native American languages which, when tested in the
courts, proved to be effectively unenforceable. It should be noted, however, that most
studies of language policies refer to large nation-states, rather than to small jurisdictions
and even smaller language communities.

6.3.1 Official support in islands round the British Isles

In the Isle of Man, the indigenous language has had government support since 1985.
Although its language declined faster than those of the Channel Islands, language policy
is also more developed. In December 1984 the island parliament, Tynwald, adopted a
motion that all government agencies should support and encourage Manx Gaelic, that
official oaths, documents and place names should be able to be expressed in Manx Gaelic
or English with equal standing. This led to the setting up of a Select Committee on the
Greater Use of Manx Gaelic, which, in addition to reaffirming government support for
the language, recommended provision for Manx in education and increased use of
bilingual signage (see 6.4 below). A corpus planning body, Coonceil ny Gaelgey, the
Manx Gaelic Advisory Council, was established in 1986 as agreed in recommendation
(e) of the 1985 Report (see 6.5 on standardisation).
Gawne (2002) places significant emphasis on planning, especially the establishment of
an integrated Manx Language Development Programme.5 He also stresses the value of
seeking ideas and experienced advice from other communities and governments, in this
case especially from Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It could be argued that this has meant
that the scope of language revitalisation efforts in the Isle of Man is more ambitious than
in the Channel Islands, as well as having a firmer base in good practice.
Another significant factor in the Isle of Man is that a large proportion of government
funding for language support is channelled via quasi-autonomous organisations such as
the Manx Heritage Foundation and non-governmental organisations such as Mooinjer
Veggey, the Manx pre-school organisation (see 6.2).
Gawne (2002) observes that the 1985 Report of the Select Committee on the Greater
Use of Manx Gaelic failed to establish any agency to ensure that these recommendations
were acted upon. However, [d]espite the lack of consideration of an implementation
strategy, this report established some important principles not least that Tynwald believes
that support of Manx Gaelic should be an objective of the Manx Government (2002: 5).
In January 1992, a Manx Language Officer and two peripatetic Manx teachers were
appointed. Their primary task was to deliver Manx classes in schools, which were
introduced in September 1992, nearly seven years after Tynwald recommended their
introduction, and, as Gawne (2002) points out, after significant nationalist unrest and
considerable lobbying by the MHF and the Manx Language Working Party. The
Language Officer post was originally funded by the MHF for two years and then by the
Department of Education, which also funds the peripatetic teachers. As well as
coordinating teaching, the Language Officer developed and advised on language policy,
planning and implementation. However, by 1997 it was clear that due to the demand for
Manx lessons, another post was needed (Stowell 2000). In 1998 a separate part-time
position of yn Greinneyder (Manx Language Development Officer) was established to
focus on pre-school and adult teaching and general language promotion, originally jointly
funded by the MHF and Manx National Heritage but subsequently solely through MHF.
This allowed the Education Departments Manx Language Officer to focus on the school
language programme, but one consequence may have been less coordination between the
two strands of language planning. According to Gawne (2002), the Manx Gaelic Society,
Yn heshaght Ghailckagh, was instrumental in pushing for this extra post, which was
expanded to full-time within a few years.
The relative independence of yn Greinneyder from political interference to develop
language policy, compared to counterparts in the Channel Islands, facilitates the
implementation of decisions, but may concomitantly reduce the officers influence in
setting and overseeing overall policy. However, the stage of building political consensus
for language revitalisation in the Isle of Man seems to have been successfully
surmounted, and former activists turned politicians monitor government language policy.
Developments in the Isle of Man were followed by language activists in the Channel
Islands, both within and outside government. The appointment of Language Officers has
been seen as a key step in developing government language policies and support at an
appropriate level for a small island.
In Jersey LOffice du Jrriais was established in 1998. As in the Isle of Man, it is
funded by the government via an independent trust, Le Don Balleine. As mentioned in
Chapter 2, a survey carried out on behalf of the government by two Senators (who
happened to be language activists) had found significant support from parents for Jrriais
lessons in schools. A report to the government by the Education Committee states: This
level of interest suggests that it would not be possible to meet the demand with a small
group of volunteer Jrriais speakers (Education Committee 1998: 7). This report makes
explicit reference to the experience of the Isle of Man in setting up a language support
programme.
The first Jersey Language Teaching Co-ordinator was appointed in 1999 as a two-year
trial, which was deemed successful. LOffice du Jrriais has since expanded from one
officer to three (2.8 full-time equivalent posts). Expansion was planned, although it was
not originally taken into account in Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The offices duties are
principally language-in-education planning, including corpus planning and materials
development. In 2009 a partnership agreement was signed with the Department for
Education, Sport and Culture, which clarifies the former informal arrangement and sets
out responsibilities on both sides. Since then the officers have extended their activities,
especially in the area of status and prestige planning (especially web presence and the
print environment), though without the allocation of further resources.
It could be argued that without LOffice du Jrriais there would be little awareness of
Jrriais among younger people, as traditional language associations tend to cater for the
older generation of traditional speakers and to focus on cultural activities for their own
age group. Apart from lessons and the annual Eisteddfod language festival, there are few
other language-related activities and no family transmission.
Guernsey has been the slowest of these three island jurisdictions to implement official
support for its indigenous language. The first government language policy document was
published by the Culture and Leisure Department in July 2007. In December 2007 a
Language Support Officer was recruited, employed directly by the Culture and Leisure
Department; Yan Marquis was appointed and started work in early 2008. The remit in the
job description was broad: according to its job specification, the post-holder was tasked
initially to produce a comprehensive strategy for Guernsiais for the island and to
facilitate the implementation of the strategy, in partnership with various stakeholders in
Guernsiais and the wider community of Guernsey. Key areas included awareness-
raising and language documentation, as well as support for voluntary initiatives, drawing
on examples of best practice globally. Although language campaigners had requested
such an appointment for some time and were consulted during the preparation of the
report, some reacted negatively to the announcement, claiming that a paid officer might
interfere with and devalue voluntary efforts (although the job description stated that the
officer would support such efforts). With hindsight, better use could have been made of
public relations when official support was first initiated and when recruiting an officer.
Some Guernsey language supporters feel that official support might entail constraints
or accountability, which might outweigh the benefits. Jaffe (1999a: 18) notes that in
Corsica, the authority of language legislation runs counter to powerful Corsican
discourses about the voluntary and affective value of the mother tongue. One Guernsey
respondent commented:

If the government gets behind something it becomes a government thing and when
its a government thing people dig their heels in, certainly over here, unless they
agree with it and they might agree with it but the problem is, what the States of
Guernsey would probably do is pay a ridiculous amount of money for some English
consultants to come over and tell us how it should be done and um everyone
would kick up a big fuss about it the way its been arranged and the money thats
been wasted and the whole meaning of the reason behind it would be lost. (AQ123)

From 2008 to 2011, ideological differences, as discussed in Chapters 5 and 7, made

policy formulation and implementation increasingly difficult. Marquis and Sallabank
(2013) report:

From the beginning the definition of Support [see Chapter 1] in this job title
[Language Support Officer] was problematic. It was interpreted narrowly by
stakeholders and some politicians as support for (particular) groups, initiatives or
individuals, with preservation and development of the language increasingly
ignored. It proved impossible to develop a cohesive strategy based on agreed goals;
 Marquis resigned the post in July 2011 and has not been replaced.

Up to the time of writing, little progress has been made in developing a replacement
strategy, despite consultations by the Ministry with language supporters. As well as the
interpretation of support, the interpretation of language community is also
problematic: Guernesiais is presumed to be chiefly the concern of traditional or native
speakers, so that learners and members of a potential new speaker community have had
little input into policy-making to date.
All three islands are members of the British-Irish Council (see Chapter 2), which has
identified protection and promotion of indigenous minority languages as a priority. Other
regions, especially Wales, which is the lead member on language policy, see maintaining
regional identity as increasingly important in the era of globalisation, with languages a
key element. All three islands have been sharing information on indigenous language
revitalisation with other members through this forum. As the only member not to have
recognised or promoted its indigenous language, Guernsey came under strong pressure in
the first decade of the twenty-first century to initiate a language policy to support
Guernesiais. The government was put in the position of having to be seen to do more, to
project the desired external image (Ager 1996: 26).
One issue which challenges both the rhetoric of government support for language
revitalisation, and the reliance on Language Officers as drivers of language planning, is
the value placed on the posts themselves, which may indicate an underlying lack of
commitment to long-term language policy implementation. The jobs of Language
Officer and teacher of [Jrriais] do not yet seem to have full validity as career paths. In
all three islands the Language Officer posts were initially temporary, and although there
is now a degree of tenure in the Isle of Man and Jersey, both rely on voluntary
organisations for management functions. None has any administrative support, and
opportunities for career progression are limited. In Jersey and the Isle of Man, peripatetic
teachers of the indigenous languages are employed on a part-time basis. In Jersey they
are paid an hourly rate plus petrol expenses; in Guernsey, most school-based sessions are
taught by volunteers, who are not even given expenses. In Guernsey the grading of the
Language Officer post was not commensurate with officers in other departments. The
Jersey Language Officer posts and the Heritage Foundation-managed Language Officer
post in the Isle of Man do not have pensions attached (although Department of Education
posts do). In addition, planning for the long-term continuation of provision seems to be
lacking or ad hoc, for example with regard to training potential future officers and
teachers: in Jersey two of the current Language Officers will retire shortly, but there are
few potential candidates with the requisite language skills. Manx-medium education
provision in the Isle of Man is also reported by practitioners to be planned on a short-
term, ad hoc basis, and complaints have been voiced about the lack of teacher
development (see 6.6).
6.3.2 Official language status
It might be thought that a first step in government support for a minority language would
be to recognise it as an official language or to recognise the right to use it in certain
contexts, before funding to preserve/promote it can be sought. However, this is not
always or necessarily the case. In both Jersey and Guernsey, some political support and
funding has been provided without or before moves to officialise the languages. Indeed,
it seems that the fact of funding a Language Officer does not necessarily mean the
language is official, although a Guernsey civil servant informed me in 2008 that it meant
that Guernesiais was de facto recognised.
There are also voices that oppose officialisation or see it as unnecessary or irrelevant
to grass-roots activities, especially if a language is seen as primarily an oral vernacular.
Phil Gawne, former Manx Language Development Officer, feels that any official
recognition would inevitably state that English was the main language and that Manx
could hold only a secondary position. In addition, recognition of a minority language by
use in public services is often symbolic rather than functional. Mougeon and Beniak
(1989: 293) note that by the time it is thought to offer bureaucratic services in minority
languages, they are usually superfluous because most speakers have perforce become
bilingual in the dominant language. Several informants in the Isle of Man expressed
scepticism about a campaign in Wales to have the right to receive tax forms in Welsh,
which they see as of low priority and irrelevant. A recent email correspondent stressed
that a good teaching and learning experience for students was more important.
Les Pages Jrriaises website states that L Jrriais est la langue minnoritaithe
officielle d Jrri (Jrriais is the official minority language of Jersey).6 However, the
Jersey governments website does not mention official status, describing Jrriais as
precious and as an important part of Jerseys heritage.7 Nevertheless, its general
website masthead includes a translation of the heading (see Figure 6.1) which is included
on all pages, not only the one about Jrriais. This feature, which highlights the fact that
Jersey has its own language in a highly visible flagship location, was praised by
Guernsey Deputy (member of parliament) Darren Duquemin, who has taken
responsibility for language policy in the States of Guernsey (see 6.3.4).

Figure 6.1 States of Jersey public information website masthead from

www.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx (reproduced with permission from the States of Jersey)

The Jersey Language Office reports that Jrriais is recognised as a regional language
by the British and Irish governments within the framework of the British-Irish Council,
which proceeds on the basis that all the languages are equal, but benefit from different
structures and are in need of different support. Approaches, methodologies and policies
are agreed by officials and ministers, so that governments sign up to principles that
would have been a hard sell if wed had to argue for them in our own little corners
(Geraint Jennings, Offici assistant du Jrriais (Assistant Jersey Language Officer),
personal communication, 18 December 2012).
According to LOffice du Jrriais, the 2005 Island Cultural Strategy proposed the
adoption of Jrriais as Jerseys official minority language, and the investigation of
ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.8 Some
objections were raised on the (spurious?) grounds that Jrriais was seen as a dialect of
French, which has an official function in legislation, unlike Jrriais (a consequence of the
diglossic relationship with French described in Chapters 2 and 5). However, lOffice du
Jrriais explained the definition as laid out in the Charter; that satisfied the requesting
party (Geraint Jennings, 17 December 2012).
Manx is recognised as a regional language of the UK under the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages, which from the point of view of island sovereignty is
not entirely satisfactory since it is not part of the UK. Kelly (2005) writes:

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages offers two levels of
commitment to Manx. Part Two protection involves a general commitment, while
Part Three makes more specific requirements, including provision for the language
to be used in court proceedings and governments dealing with the public.
While the Isle of Man already meets the Part Three requirements in some respects,
including education and heritage, it has opted for Part Two protection at this stage,
and will keep the question of Part Three protection under review.

As noted above, in 1985 Tynwald passed a resolution to give the Manx language
limited official recognition for the first time in Manx history. It recommended the
following policies:

(a) . . . the preservation and promotion of Manx Gaelic should be an objective

of the Isle of Man Government.
(b) . . . foundation courses in Manx studies for all pupils in both primary and
secondary schools with opportunities for further specific courses on a
voluntary basis and to that end should also provide courses for teachers . . .
(c) . . . bi-lingual signs for offices, vehicles and on notepaper and . . . greater
use of the Manx Gaelic insofar as this can be done without increasing costs
or reducing efficiency.
(d) . . . Ceremonial Oaths . . . should be capable of being taken in Manx
Gaelic . . .
 (e) . . . a voluntary Manx Language Advisory Commission.
(f) . . . bi-lingual documentation should not be discouraged provided such use
does not deleteriously affect commercial activity or the expeditious
administration of justice.
(g) Street name signs and village and town boundary signs should be bi-
lingual except where the traditional Manx name is the accepted form.

(Gawne 2002)

All of these recommendations were eventually carried out, although for some it took
twenty years. It can be argued that legislation may eventually lead to concrete language
planning actions; and in this case, it led to the development of several further phases of
integrated language strategies, as well as to activism to remind the legislators of their
stated intentions.
In the Channel Islands the de facto language of officialdom had been French ever
since the sixteenth century, although Lewis (1895), who sat in on some debates in the
States of Guernsey when researching his doctoral dissertation, observed that the French
used was sometimes not very standard. In 1926 English was accepted for use in the
States and in courts of law. Johnstone (1994: 12) makes the common assumption that this
meant that English was adopted as an official language of the Island. However, there is
no legislation defining official language(s), merely permitted languages. The Island
Archivist, Darryl Ogier, commented in March 2010: I dont think we have an official
language or languages in the sense of one or more laid down by law. All we can say is
that English became admissible in the States at a particular date and in the Courts at
another (most lately in re conveyancing in 1969). Billets dEtat (bills for debate) were
published in French until 1946, when local government was reorganised following World
War II. Conveyances of Realty continued to be drawn up in French until 1969 (Darryl
Ogier, March 2010) and the titles of bills are still in French.
The legislative status of the indigenous languages can be seen to be related to their
perceived status as languages or dialects, which is related in turn to ideologies about
language. Trudgill (1992) observes that whether a variety is designated a language or not
is related not only to linguistic characteristics (such as degree of relatedness or difference
to the majority language), but also to social and economic factors (see 1.2).

6.3.3 Political commitment and funding

As noted in Chapter 5, rhetoric in favour of local language retention has become
accepted as standard in all three islands. For example, Mike OHara, Guernsey Minister
of Culture and Leisure, stated in 2009:

Im very supportive. Always have been . . . Yes absolutely a hundred per cent,
 weve made it very much part of our culture and leisure strategic policy. All the
island knows about it. Were now at the first stepping stone and we just need to
keep going . . .

Yet it is also evident from interviews that many politicians know (or care) relatively
little about language issues, especially in Guernsey and Jersey. This may be problematic
when it comes to the formulation of workable strategies and budgeting. There are many
ways in which the Manx government funds language revitalisation, e.g. formal
education, peripatetic teachers, adult education, bilingual signage, partnerships with
business, etc. The total amount of government language support is not stated, and
estimates range from 100,000 to 1 million per year. This lack of clarity is because
much of the funding is indirect, via organisations such as the MHF (which employs yn
Greinneyder, the Manx Language Development Officer), Manx National Heritage, the
Centre for Manx Studies (an offshoot of Liverpool University but with some funding
from the Manx government), the Mooinjer Veggey Trust which runs pre-schools, the
Manx-medium primary school and secondary immersion classes, the Arts Council (e.g.
Manx Music), Manx Radio, etc. There is also significant investment via the Education
Department, which has a Manx Language Officer and a team of peripatetic teachers who
provide optional Manx lessons in approximately half of the island schools. A former
Language Officer commented, we cant really complain. But then for many hundreds of
years they did nothing, so theyre only making up for lost time.
Jersey and Guernsey language activists and politicians frequently allude to the fact
that funding for language support is significantly higher in the Isle of Man. Yet a Manx
civil servant interviewed in 2008 admitted that the Education Department had originally
underestimated the take-up of Manx lessons, and should have appointed five teachers
rather than two. It is difficult to say what a reasonable amount of funding for language
support might be, especially since economic constraints have also led to language being
deprioritised in relation to more essential services. A Guernsey civil servant observed:

There wont be any money around for years . . . its a double whammy . . .
international world problems, the banking, and the confidence, but coupled with that
for Jersey, Guernsey and to a lesser extent the Isle of Man there is the transition, the
zero-ten in Guernsey terms where weve had millions of pounds wiped off our
revenue by the changes of the economic structure . . . and the unplanned world
economic situation.

Yet underlying support for government funding is indicated by a report on funding

reviews (i.e. cuts) in the Jersey Evening Press, dated May 17 2011, which observes, its
not the head that keeps on funding, say, the teaching of Jrriais in the Island its the
heart:9 in other words, Jrriais may not be seen as essential, but it is seen as desirable.
In all three islands, it is now almost taken for granted that government representatives
will be supportive of language maintenance. An Isle of Man official observed in 2008:

Having appeared to be almost reluctantly providing what people wanted and lagging
slightly behind their wildest aspirations has been actually an amazingly effective
factor in determining its continuation and its success and I would say now that
politically there would be utterly no chance of it being opposed because the sixteen
year bedding in period has been so free from problems and contentions that
politically everybody is on board now and therefore the momentum and support for
propagating the Manx language is stronger than ever before, certainly our
departments commitment is big it really is big.

Wilson (2008: 79) suggests that economic stability has been crucial in amassing this
support:

The gradual expansion of the Isle of Mans political and economic autonomy during
the 20th century and its particular status as a Crown Dependency have provided the
government with the policy tools and jurisdiction to pursue a program of cultural
and linguistic revitalization. The governments ability to maneuver on this issue has
been supported by the revenues it has derived from a thriving off-shore banking and
services sector. Despite the concerns that the new economy has threatened the
indigenous culture and language by initiating an influx of immigrants who have
little or no connection to Manx language and culture, the future of the linguistic and
cultural revival is largely dependent on the continued growth and development of
the island economy.

Wilsons paper was written just before the current economic downturn. Although
support for language revitalisation seems embedded in government culture in the Isle of
Man, activists are aware that economic problems may lead to reduced funding and the
reduction of provision, especially since in 2011 funding for the peripatetic teaching of
French was withdrawn. At the time of writing, there is therefore a move to establish a
new independent campaigning and fundraising organisation, which actively seeks
support from people who do not necessarily speak the language, as well as from the
private industry sector.
Support for Manx seemed widespread and secure until economic problems arrived.
Although the islands economy remains relatively healthy, government finances were hit
hard by changes in UK tax regulations in 2009: the wheels have just fallen off the IOM
economy; its fairly catastrophic and theres no guarantee well have jobs in 6 months10
(Adrian Cain, Manx Language Development Officer, personal communication, 22
October 2009); nevertheless, government support for Manx seems robust: at the time of
writing at the end of 2012, the Language Development Officer remains in post and the
government continues to support Manx language initiatives.
 There are indications that the establishment of a Language Officer post can act as a
catalyst for non-governmental language-related activities. In Guernsey the appointment
of a Language Officer provided a contact point for language-related enquiries. This led to
increased inclusion of some Guernesiais in the branding of local products and services,
and to requests from local businesses and organisations for translations of slogans: e.g.
bus timetables, notices at an agricultural show, signs at sports centres and a family
centre. One interviewee reported that:

The Guernsey Press run this thing children draw advertisements for local companies
and I noticed this year in the newspaper bit with all these advertisements, four or
five of them had put in a little Guernsey French phrase. (GF38)

A local businessman who incorporated some Guernesiais in product branding

recounted:

There was something somewhere a while ago that Guernsey was employing a
Language Officer, and it stuck in my mind . . . so then it was case of find out who it
is and can they help . . . so he was just very helpful . . . came up with loads of
different ideas. So thats how it came about in a way Yan made it easy, because he
was there and its his job to do this. Otherwise it wouldnt have been difficult one
of my mothers friends speaks patois . . . she says that different parishes speak
different so I can imagine trying to get a consensus out of them would have been a
nightmare. (GE17)

The use of local languages in branding will be discussed further in 6.4.1.

6.3.4 Strategic planning

In their guide for language planning practitioners, Grenoble and Whaley (2006: 174)
emphasise the need to assess goals and resources available:

What is the long-term vision for revitalization? What would be considered a

successful outcome for the effort? . . . Minimally, [goals] should include a
recognition of who is being targeted primarily in the revitalization process, the level
of language proficiency that the revitalization is meant to bring about, [and] the
intended domains in which the local language will be used.

In Guernsey and the Isle of Man, Language Officers remits include the production of
language strategy documents. In the Isle of Man, strategy documents have been produced
by the Manx Language (Development) Officers in 1995, 2000 and 2010. These vary
considerably in format and the amount of budgetary detail included, but they generally
include reasons why Manx should be promoted and achievements to date as well as
recommendations for future implementation. The 2010 recommendations11 include
(amongst others):

teacher development;
promotion of family use of Manx;
Manx as a properly timetabled subject in all secondary schools;
ensuring progression amongst learners of Manx;
the publication of a pocket dictionary for learners;
support for the Manx Gaelic Youth Group;
encouragement for businesses and other government departments to use Manx in
appropriate ways;
an increase in the amount of Manx in the media;
support for academic research into Manx Gaelic, which will specifically improve
the quality of language instruction on the Island.

Reading between the lines of these recommendations, it is clear that although nearly
all the recommendations of the 2000 Integrated Development Programme were
implemented, including the establishment of the Manx-medium primary school, there is a
perceived need to strengthen the implementation of Manx language policies.
The Guernsey Language Strategy for 20111512 included a comprehensive range of
Objectives and Actions on such aspects as:

raising the profile, increasing the awareness and use of Guernsiais;

recording and analysis of usage, pronunciation and oral tradition;
developing opportunities for people to learn Guernsiais.

As is usual with Guernsey government documents, the plans show:

aims;
objectives;
the partners that the Department will need to work with;
the time by which the action should be delivered;
the actions to be carried out;
progress with the action.

The document is candid in that some of the Objectives, notably corpus planning and
increasing the web presence of Guernesiais, were behind target when it was compiled.
Nevertheless, four of the eight Objectives are listed as on target for completion within
the allotted timeframe, or is progressing to a satisfactory standard in terms of: schedule,
finance and resources; these include Development of language policy and
Development of opportunities for people to learn Guernsiais. The overall Cultural
Strategy for 20111513 assesses all language-related objectives and actions as on target;
I would argue that this presents a considerably more optimistic view of progress than is
the case from observations.
A source in Jersey suggested that ticking off boxes on government strategy
documents is largely a bureaucratic exercise, so that, for example, although the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has not been ratified (which was an aim in
the 2005 Jersey Cultural Strategy), as long as things are taking place as though
ratification has occurred (without the reporting requirement), progress is being made. I
would argue that to present such a picture does not support effective language planning.
Both Guernseys and Jerseys plans include official recognition of the islands
languages. The Guernsey Language Strategy for 201115 includes as an Action
Guernsiais recognised as a regional language of Europe (behind target for completion
within the allotted timeframe, but still progressing at a rate which is not causing financial
or resource-driven problems), while the Jersey Education, Sport and Culture Business
Plan 200914 includes, as clause 9, Recognise Jrriais under EC Charter for
Regional/Minority languages. The Key Performance Indicator in the Jersey policy is
listed as Expansion of teaching provision and measures to promote Jrriais, with the
target of Increased adult and youth interest in Jrriais by 2009. The Key Risk is given
as Lack of States [government] support for charter extension. The frankness of the last
point is notable, but the performance indicator (expansion of teaching provision) does
not relate directly to the aim of official recognition for Jrriais.
Most of the strategy documents cited look a maximum of five years ahead. Given that
language revitalisation is by its nature a project that could and should take generations
(especially given the rhetoric on intergenerational transmission), it might be seen as
useful to plan for periods of twentythirty years. Revitalisation efforts in the Isle of Man
have been in process since 1985, with Language Officers in post since 1992, so there is a
retrospective available against which to compare potential goals, achievements and
challenges.
On 6 February 2013 a new language strategy was announced for Guernesiais,
following elections in 2012. Prior to the announcement Culture and Leisure Department
member Deputy Darren Duquemin, who has taken on responsibility for language policy,
consulted numerous people involved in language-related activities, asking questions
which included the following:

Where they would like to see Guernesiais in 2016, 2022 and in 2025
What they, others and government can do for Guernesiais
What they saw as the main obstacles or problems
Which ten places or times they would like to see/hear Guernesiais used in ten
years time
 How the success of language activities should be measured.

Few details are available of the exciting new initiatives of this strategy at the time of
writing; a Language Commission has been set up to develop more detailed plans. The
presentation in February 2013 highlighted the importance of having benchmarks, and
stated that the aim was to increase both numbers of speakers and levels of fluency, while
recognising that not all learners could or would become fluent. Suggested benchmarks of
success included:

some fluent speakers;

lots who know a few everyday phrases;
islanders of all ages;
pride;
the Guernsey language.

These somewhat vague elements were combined into a slogan: Whether we are fluent
or use just a few phrases, islanders of all ages are proud of Guernseys own language.
Awareness and recognition were stated as key features (i.e. prestige planning), with the
repeated exhortation to aim high. Thus, although there are signs that the need for a
longer-term perspective and strategic planning are being recognised in Guernsey,
concrete benchmarks are lacking so far.
The Manx Language Development Officer recognises that he has little power over
other government departments (personal communication, 19 December 2012), so a key
recommendation of the Strategic Review for 201015 is the creation of a Manx
Language Advisory Committee which could help unify policy towards the language,
with representatives from key departments and voluntary groups.
In order to be effective, language policy needs to be joined up; it needs to permeate
thinking in all areas, in much the same way as environmental policy otherwise policy
statements become simply lip service or window dressing.15 In an interview in 2009,
the then Guernsey Language Support Officer, Yan Marquis, stressed that each
department which forms part of the government should be embracing the language in
every way it can . . . Ideally each department should have someone who is responsible
for the language. In Jersey and Guernsey, language activists and officers have
complained that initiatives such as signage in local languages have been delayed, blocked
or reversed by other departments or by privatised service providers. For example, in
Guernsey the planning office was reluctant to approve signs in Guernesiais, and in Jersey
in 2008, a redesign of the government website removed Jrriais versions of several pages
without consultation. This highlights the need for internal marketing of local languages
or prestige planning within the machinery of government and for pro-indigenous
language policies to be fully integrated into the work of government as a whole.
 In the Isle of Man, a new bus operating company has removed Manx place names
from destination boards, despite protests from the Language Office. In both Jersey and
Guernsey, signs in the local languages have been removed from the airports (see 6.4 for
more on local language in the print environment). A Jersey language activist complained
that they had worked hard to get welcome signs at airports and harbours . . . the new
airport director from Australia didnt understand and got them removed. An official
commented:

On the part of government it requires a willingness to recognise what supporting a

language entails . . . I think another aspect is how policy which advocated e.g.
signage was promulgated within government so the favourite example is airport
signage . . . in order to be able to say to the airport authorities you are transgressing
. . . youve taken down a piece of Jrriais you need to have widely adopted and
accepted policy . . . but there isnt anywhere that says that States departments should
do this, and its quite difficult to get States departments to make those efforts if
there isnt some centrally adopted strategy or policy to do it.

The Guernsey Language Support Officer commented in August 2009:

Im not asking for much, at the entrance to each parish something saying Bianvnu
. . . its been given to the parishes, and responses have been positive overall.
Something as simple as that has taken so much of my time because of what I see as
stalling techniques by the Environment dept. They have a procedure and they have
to have boxes ticked but were talking about a little sign. It does seem to me that
there could be a little opposition. It does seem to me that Environment havent
embraced language or the idea that they have a role . . . I dont think theres enough
internal marketing. A lot of the planning officers are non-locals, they perhaps dont
appreciate the significance of having a little sign in a funny little language . . . One
has the impression in the Isle of Man that its a corporate language of the Isle of
Man its in there at the core. Whereas here its still something that the happy
department does, sports and leisure department.

As stated in this excerpt, language or local culture are not seen as priorities for
government intervention: the Guernsey Minister of Education, interviewed in 2009,
stated that science and technology were more important foci when establishing local
higher education opportunities. In the Isle of Man, by comparison, the Isle of Man
College has established qualifications in cultural tourism and marketing.

6.4 Linguistic landscape

Campaigns to boost the status of a minority language frequently focus on increasing its
visibility, since including local languages in the public space makes a statement about
language validity (Moriarty 2011; Gorter, Marten and Van Mensel 2011). As I discuss in
Sallabank (2011a), linguistic landscape is a rapidly growing field of study, which
examines the language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place
names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings (Landry and
Bourhis 1997: 25). It is often paraphrased as language in the public space or in the print
environment, although arguably the linguistic landscape should include the media and
cyberspace, especially given the increasing multimodality of communications (Kress
2009). As spoken languages are primarily oral, audibility in broadcast media as well as in
daily life is arguably another essential aspect of the linguistic landscape.
From the print environment in the Isle of Man, the impression gained of Manx is one
of vibrancy and widespread support, which outstrips its spoken vitality. It is accepted
policy that when public signage needs replacing, the replacement should be bilingual,
which steadily increases the amount of Manx in the linguistic landscape. Government
buildings and vehicles, from street names and police cars to the Office of Fair Trading,
are labelled bilingually (see Figure 6.2). Some commercial organisations and others have
followed this lead, e.g. Tesco, a major UK-based supermarket chain, and the Mormon
church. A parent of a child at the Manx-medium school commented: you do know there
is a language, because its on the road signs although you dont really think of it as a
thing that you would speak necessarily. This demonstrates the ability of linguistic
landscape to influence perceptions of language vitality, if not language practices.
Figure 6.2 Examples of Manx signs

In the Channel Islands the study of language in the public space is complicated by the
use of standard French on street signs as the High written form in the former diglossic
relationship. Many street names are written in English and French, but are not necessarily
direct translations: for example, in St Helier, the capital of Jersey, La Rue du Pilori
(Stocks Street) in French (the earlier version) is rendered as Quay Street in English. The
reclamation of place names is a frequent focus of revitalisation efforts, e.g. in Ireland and
Australia. LOffice du Jrriais has made a concerted effort to increase the amount of
Jrriais in public signage, either bilingual JrriaisEnglish or trilingual with French: for
example, its website shows recycling bins with Jrriais on one side and English on the
other.16 Smaller but highly visible components of the print environment are included in
this drive: for example, the latest Jersey banknotes have the denominations written in
Jrriais as well as English and French, albeit in smaller print. Darren Duquemin, a
Guernsey politician who is spearheading a new government initiative to support language
revitalisation, identified such tokenism as an important element of language promotion.
High-circulation items such as banknotes, milk cartons and websites are seen as
flagship items which increase the currency of the language and help to sell the
islands difference to investors such as the finance sector (see 6.4.1).
In the Channel Islands the major food retailer was Jersey-based until 2010 when it was
bought by Waitrose, a UK-based chain, who removed the local-language signage, food
labelling and receipts which had been introduced by its predecessor. Knowledge of the
fact that another multinational food retailer has deemed it appropriate to include some
Manx in its signage is one example of how information-sharing might be used as
leverage in other places such as the Channel Islands.
As noted by Edwards (2001), bilingual signs have both a functional and a symbolic
value. In all these islands, tourism is now a major consideration in regard to language
visibility, and many bilingual or trilingual signs, in Jersey especially, seem to be aimed at
tourists. In Guernsey there has also been an increase in the number of items aimed
mainly at tourists which include some written in Guernesiais, e.g. postcards, tea towels,
childrens T-shirts, bookmarks.
Unlike larger minority European languages such as Welsh and Basque, there are few
public media in Jrriais, Guernesiais or Manx; the Manx Language Development Officer
has identified this as a priority to address. There is five minutes of news a week on BBC
Radio Guernsey, and a saying of the week on a commercial radio station. The BBC
Guernesiais news is broadcast early in the morning at weekends, yet a large proportion of
speakers, and also many non-speakers, reported listening to it. On BBC Radio Jersey
there is one weekly radio item, the Lettre Jrriaise (Jrriais letter), written and recorded
by a team of Jrriais-speaking volunteers in turns, on a topic of their choice. It was
realised in the mid-2000s that there was no need to repeat the news as all Jrriais
speakers understood English. Manx Radio announces itself in Manx (Shoh Radio Vannin,
This is Manx Radio) and broadcasts some Manx language-related programmes on
Saturday mornings, but these are mainly about the language rather than in it. Innovative
formats are used to provide interesting Manx-related content: e.g. language lessons
combined with music, or a magazine programme, Shiaght Laa (Seven Days), presented
in English and Manx, which previews forthcoming events as well as reporting from such
varied locations as ploughing matches or linguistic seminars.17 A Manx Broadcasting
Committee (which holds its meetings in Manx) promotes such programming and also
develops Manx audio-visual and digital media.
Series of articles in Guernesiais and Jrriais were published in local newspapers
between the nineteenth century and the 1960s. Occasional articles with English
translations still appear in the Jersey Evening Post, as well as a daily proverb. The
Guernsey Press carries a weekly Donkey dialogue18 (short phrases or proverbs in
Guernesiais), and a similar item is broadcast on a local commercial radio station. In the
Channel Islands the amount of local languages in the media has decreased in the last few
years because of a shortage of people willing and able to write or recite them. On Sark,
until 2009, very short pieces in Serquiais appeared in an island newsletter, but this has
ceased publication. In Jersey, publications in and about Jrriais are sponsored by Le Don
Balleine Trust, which also publishes a quarterly magazine, Les Nouvelles Chroniques du
Don Balleine, which encourages new writing in Jrriais; in Guernsey occasional
materials are published by La Socit Guernesiaise, and in 2012 the Culture and Leisure
Department published a full-colour introduction to Guernesiais for children, Warro! The
1982 De Garis Dictionary, which had been out of print, was also slightly revised and
reprinted.
However, as noted in the previous section, linguistic landscape is one of the areas of
language policy that can suffer if there is a lack of coordination or commitment, or if pro-
local-language policies of either governments and private organisations are reversed; this
highlights a major disadvantage of relying on top-down policies and window dressing
taken most literally.

6.4.1 Branding
Increased awareness of local languages has acted as a catalyst for their inclusion in
commercial branding, especially on locally produced food and drink products, e.g. by a
Guernsey coffee-roasting company. This indicates that in all three islands, firms perceive
that including some of the local language will enhance their products marketability by
stressing island identity. A Guernsey entrepreneur stated:

For me Im extremely proud of what we do . . . I know some guys in Ireland who

call their coffee companies by an Italian sounding name but youre in Ireland, you
 speak Irish . . . I want people to know that this is being made here . . . I want people
to think that coffee from Guernsey can be great coffee . . . Im proud that were
doing this here. . . . Its a logical way I think of communicating to people that were
Guernsey . . . It should reflect well on us, and reflect well on Guernsey . . . you
dont have to be Italian to do it . . . so thats where the drive to have a Guernsey
name came from . . . a good way of communicating what were doing . . . the rest of
it was down to finding a name that was short enough and easy enough for people to
grasp . . . and being meaningful enough that it ties in. And thats where Coupae
[cupful] and Espresso Guernesiais came in.

A parent at the Bunscoill Ghaelgagh (Manx-medium school) commented: I think

more and more its maybe, oh were a local company its your local message. That is
probably more the drive for most companies . . . a friendly local image (MA13). A
Guernsey interviewee noted the awareness-raising function of such initiatives: So
theres another Guernsey word popping up there and at least people then ask what is
this where does it come from? (GE17). But a Jersey manager recognised that the value
of such branding is about image rather than for communication:

I dont think well ever get to the stage where our staff will greet people in Jrriais
because I think its fairly crass to greet people in a language that they havent a clue
what the hell theyre talking about. (JE03)

The image presented may not necessarily coincide with one of the Language Officers
reasons for linking language and business, to promote an image of local languages as
adaptable for modern purposes. With regard to a local cheese which had been given a
Guernesiais name (Frie dor, golden meadow), a marketing manager commented:

The heritage of the Guernsey cow goes back a long way theres a lot of history
about it, so when we went through the sort of initial rebranding phase of the
business . . . we were keen to promote a luxury branded item but also try and keep
some of the sort of countrified or heritage side of thats why we went for the
ginghamy type of approach as well . . . trying to embrace Guernseys history and
heritage. (GE18)

It is significant that local-language branding is now seen as a selling point, given the
historical low status of the islands vernaculars. The same interviewee continued:

We found this niche market, high value niche market, really good PR for the
business as well, because it went into the local media . . . On the back of the Frie
dor pack what weve tried to do is to explain to people what the name means . . . to
subtly underline the fact that we do have a traditional Norman name in language . . .
So again were just doing our bit to raise the profile of the brand and give people a
 bit of interest into our heritage.

But a lack of coherence in language policy can damage such initiatives: for example,
the sale of the Guernsey Airport shop has led to the removal of not only Guernesiais-
language signs, but also of a high-profile outlet for small local producers.
The Language Offices in the Isle of Man and Jersey have made a particular effort to
involve local businesses in language promotion. A YouTube video produced by LOffice
du Jrriais demonstrates some uses of Jrriais in marketing, and exhorts businesses to
Faithe srvi du Jrriais (Use some Jrriais).19 Perhaps ironically, however, this video
is in Jrriais only, without subtitles, so the purported target audience of business-people
is unlikely to understand it.
The Manx language is promoted as an island success story (see Figure 6.3). Apart
from increasing the amount of Manx in the linguistic landscape, another motivation for
promoting Manx among local businesses is to raise sponsorship for other language-
related activities.
Figure 6.3 Isle of Man success story postcard (reproduced with permission from Manx
Heritage Foundation)

The Manx language was originally a central pillar of the Isle of Mans Freedom to
Flourish island branding strategy initiated in 2003,20 which promotes the island in
economy, politics, international relations, culture and education. The Brand Book itself21
is bilingual in English and Manx, and promotes indigenous language and culture as a key
element that differentiates and distinguishes the Isle of Man from other places (or
economic competitors).
Wilson (2011b), citing Kaneva (2011), defines Place Branding as a form of
marketing which aimed at both internal and external audiences. He notes that it is a
function of globalisation and global competition (especially with other low-tax
jurisdictions such as Jersey and Guernsey).
The Isle of Man Positive National Identity Guide Oayllys Jarrroo-enney Ashoonagh
Jarrooagh, for island residents who want to communicate the Islands advantage to the
outside world, provides both basic marketing advice such as presentation, design and
copy-writing, and reasons to be proud of the island. Its introduction, Why use this
guide?, states:

We must cherish and protect our unique culture, language and way of life at a time
of globalisation where it is increasingly difficult to spot the difference between
towns and even countries.22

Page 15, entitled Pride in our language, not only emphasises the symbolic value of
language, but offers some Manx phrases to use:

Just as you dont have to be born in the Isle of Man to want to promote its values,
nor do you have to be born in the Isle of Man to enjoy and benefit from its rich
language. Incorporating some Manx phrases in your communications and customer
service greetings is an interesting point of difference . . . Here are a few words and
phrases to get you started and help is at hand if you want to explore further.

By contrast, Johnson (2010: 15), describing a similar exercise by the States of Jersey
in 2007, observes that:

Perhaps one of the most striking features of this particular branding exercise is the
absence of any distinct celebration of Jerseys Norman heritage. By Norman
heritage, I refer to aspects of island life such as Jerseys unique minority language
(Jrriais), archaeology, architecture, and legal administration that point to Norman
influences on the island.

Johnson nevertheless argues that Jerseys Norman past has renewed meaning today as
an aspect of island heritage in a broader political context. An earlier Cultural Strategy
document had stressed that:
 Language brings distinctiveness, a sense of localness and a whole new set of skills
all of which are important qualities in attracting the creative economy. It is
fundamental to the Islands identity.
(States of Jersey 2005)

One might observe that the lack of coordination in language policy and planning noted
earlier extends to other aspects of policy too.
The Guernsey Language Officer observed in 2009 that prestige language planning can
learn from marketing:

It needs to be marketed that its good for business somehow identity. Theres a lot
of marketing in this job. Raising a language that is essentially hidden for most
people, and of low status. You have to market a product. People eat McDonalds . . .
its beautifully marketed. Its the experience.

It is no coincidence that the Isle of Man Greinneyder likens himself more to a used
car salesman than a linguist. Meanwhile promotion of Jrriais has benefited from
McDonalds marketing: McDonalds sponsors the recycling bins mentioned above.23
However, some private companies that have erected signage in Guernesiais have come
under criticism for ignoring local heritage architecturally, e.g. a supermarket located in a
large, distinctive glass complex, or a caf in the style of a German bunker. Such cases
might even lead to suggestions of cynical manipulation of language as symbolic identity.
Some of these examples also serve as a reminder that agencies whose priorities are not
language itself, but which utilise (the idea of) language for their own purposes, cannot be
relied upon for long-term support and are no substitute for actual use of a language in the
community. The Channel Islands supermarkets mentioned above were bought by a UK
chain in 2012, which removed all local-language signs. It has also been noticed that the
presence of Manx language in island branding has diminished over time.24
It is also notable that many of these symbolic uses of language for identity expression
focus on tourism or external commerce. Wilson (2011b) queries whether the Freedom to
Flourish brand message is aimed primarily at an external (as opposed to internal)
audience, and whether this should be perceived as a problem? Arguably, if increasing the
number of speakers or amount of a language used is an aim, the use of language in the
linguistic landscape should arguably focus on raising awareness and selling the
language to the island population rather than to an external audience. Chapter 7 will
discuss this in relation to overt versus covert aims of language planning measures.

6.5 Standardisation and spelling

For an effective presence in the written environment, a language needs a recognised (or
recognisable) written form. As mentioned in Chapter 2, many language planners assume
that a standard written form is necessary for language promotion, especially formal
teaching and materials creation. This is referred to by Lewis and Simons (2010) as
language development, part of corpus planning in the standard framework of language
planning. The expansion of Guernesiais in the print environment and the production of
learning materials are hampered by the lack of an agreed, systematic spelling system. For
learners, lack of consistency detracts from readability and makes it difficult to develop
reading fluency (Wallace 1992).
As noted in Chapter 2, in Jersey and Guernsey dictionaries were compiled by native-
speaker language activists in the 1960s. Both have considerable prestige among the
speaker communities and exert a normalising influence despite some internal
inconsistencies. The reference language of Le Maistres (1967) dictionary was French,
which, as pointed out by Liddicoat (2000), was not commonly spoken in Jersey even in
the 1960s.
Jrriais lessons tend to focus strongly on the written word, using a series of textbooks
published by LOffice du Jrriais (although there is no prescribed curriculum). Correct
spelling is stressed, and a Jrriais spell checker was released in 2011 and is available to
download from La Socit Jersiaise website.25 However, spelling and dialectal variation
in literature pre-dating the publication of the dictionary is tolerated, as the existence of a
long-standing canon of Jrriais literature is an important ideological pillar of Jrriais as a
language.
In Jersey and the Isle of Man, a decision has been taken by the government-sponsored
language planning agencies to base standard spelling on systems established via prestige
publications: in Jersey the first major dictionary of Jrriais (Le Maistre 1967), and in the
Isle of Man the Manx Bible, published in the 1770s. These orthographies differ in their
ideological and procedural bases, and both contain inconsistencies, but the decisions
were taken for more or less the same pragmatic reasons: the perceived need to establish a
system for use in learning and teaching materials, and the availability and prestige of the
versions chosen. The development and impact of these standard orthographies are
discussed by Sebba (1998, 2000) and hIfearnin (2007a) for Manx and Liddicoat
(2000, 2007) for Jrriais.
Some drawbacks can be identified to the approach of using available orthographies,
which even the planners who sanctioned their use recognise have deficiencies. Many
learners observed in Jersey exhibited a lack of familiarity with spelling conventions and
pronunciation. This may be related to the French-based spelling system, as the problems
observed are also common among learners of French in Britain. A learner of Guernesiais
pronounced quest (which is) on a beer label (an example of branding using
Guernesiais) as /kwst/, according to English spelling norms, whereas it should be /k/.
 Le Maistres (1967) Dictionnaire JersiaisFranais was criticised by Liddicoat (2000)
for contributing to a sense of inadequacy among native speakers, and to the loss of
regional dialects, by promoting Le Maistres St Ouen (north-western) dialect as
standard or correct Jrriais. The materials currently used in Jrriais lessons elaborate
this dialect as the most distinct from standard French, especially the mutation of
intervocalic /r/ to //. From observations and interviews in 2009, it appears that Jrriais
lessons seem to be having a similar effect to that observed by Liddicoat. Some learners
are lucky enough to have grandparents who are native speakers, and they try to speak the
Jrriais they have learnt with them. But the grandparents often speak a different regional
variety, and some reported being intimidated by the correctness associated with the
school.26 This may lead to abandonment of the attempt at intergenerational
communication, lost opportunities for increased fluency among learners and loss of
regional variation. Nevertheless, as reported in Chapter 2, in the 2012 Annual Jersey
Social Survey, 32 per cent of residents surveyed said they were able to read at least some
common Jrriais words or phrases. LOffice du Jrriaiss blog comments:

We had expected a low number of writers of Jrriais as nobody had been taught to
write the language in Island schools until the launch of the teaching programme by
LOffice du Jrriais in 1999. Even so, a creditable 4% reported that they can write
some common words and phrases. It is clearly desirable to increase the number of
Jrriais writers in order to serve the much higher proportion of readers!27

Despite the claim of success for the teaching programme, unlike the Welsh census
until 2012, there is no clear increase in the number of younger people reporting being
able to understand or use Jrriais, although full age-correlated data are not available. The
number who report being able to read some Jrriais may reflect not only the teaching
programme, but simply that Jrriais is a Romance language whose spelling system is
similar to that of French, which is taught in all schools; as noted in 2.2.1, there are also a
comparatively large number of speakers of Portuguese, another Romance language, in
Jersey.
In minority-language contexts which follow a domain expansion language planning
model (see Chapter 7), it is common for a unified standard to be developed for use in
education, e.g. Basque (Urtaga 2005), Breton (Jones 1998b), Welsh (Jones 1998a) or
Gaelic (Dorian 1981: 88). Paulston (1987: 46) notes that the written standard form of
Occitan is so divergent from its spoken dialects that its speakers feel as alienated from
the movements Occitan as they do from French. Although the stated aim of endangered
language activists and European Union agencies such as the Network to Promote
Linguistic Diversity28 is to preserve linguistic diversity, it can be argued that by
promoting standardisation as a route to recognition of minority languages, their efforts
may paradoxically bring about a loss of diversity. The promotion of minority languages
can thus undermine diversity in language practices (Gal 2006; see also Sayers 2009). Gal
(2006: 21) paraphrases Whiteley (2003) in characterising this as killing the language in
order to save it.
The standard approach presupposes a definition of linguistic diversity as maximising
the number of recognised languages, rather than the wider range of ways of speaking
present in linguistic repertoires: varieties, dialects, vernaculars, registers, jargons, mixed
codes, etc. As noted by Sayers (2009: 4), linguistic diversity is a term that so far has
been under-defined. What definitions exist tend towards reductionism, often reducing
diversity to a series of distinct languages. Sayers prefers a definition of diversity that
can be represented by all the dialects of all the languages in the world; and the potential
for language to change in new ways (2009: 5). Nevertheless, Gal (2006: 27) observes
that

there is often a concomitant and self-conscious anti-standardizing move . . . These

tactics do not necessarily increase the number or speakers of a minority language
. . . But they do sometimes result in ideological transformations, so that minority
languages, rural accents, and immigrant forms are aligned less with the past and
backward looking traditions and more with forms of cultural production that have
come to signal global youth culture.

The polynomic model described in Chapter 4 reflects the heteroglossic nature

(Makoni and Pennycook 2006: 34) of many minority and endangered languages, and is
used in the teaching of Corsican (Jaffe 1999a, 2005, 2008; Blackwood 2008). Adrey
(2009: 235) suggests that

if this strategy [polynomie] succeeds, and if the education system manages to

undermine essentialist ideologies, in the medium or long-term, Corsica might pave
the way to the recognition of new, genuinely post-modern, conceptualisations of
language(s) and its/their relations to identity/identities that could be exported to
other RML [regional and minority language] contexts where similar issues are
salient (e.g. Occitany?).

However, as Marcellesi ([1983] 2003: 216) points out, the polynomic ideal is not as
easy to implement in a language revitalisation or revival context as in a maintenance one.
People with a reasonable level of language competence, whose linguistic intuition is
secure, are familiar with regional variations of their area and have no problems in
identifying and decoding variants that differ from their own way of speaking. But second
language learners need a model to aim at. From my research in Guernsey, it appears that
people who were exposed to the language in their youth but who do not have full
productive mastery also feel the need for norms and models. The majority of learners and
potential learners of Manx, Guernesiais and Jrriais have little previous knowledge of the
language and virtually no exposure to it in their daily lives.
 Recognising that identity is a major reason for learning a heritage language (see
Chapter 5), Marcellesi (1983 [2003]) describes seven linguistic features (including
regional variants) which, he suggests, act as markers of Corsican linguistic identity.
Corpora of language use, collected through language documentation, could provide
useful data for identifying such markers in other languages (Marcellesi 1987). In
addition, iconic regional features identified through research into folk-linguistic
perceptions (Nieldzielski and Preston 2003), such as the /o/~// distinction in Guernsey
and Jersey, are a necessary element of a polynomic and identity-based approach.
To reflect perceptions of authentic usage (see Chapter 5), learners would still need to
be taught how to distinguish and combine the variants in an acceptable manner according
to traditional regional norms, which raises the question of how authentic revived
regional variations could be. As I note in Sallabank (2010b), language ecologies are not
static, and an endangered language which remains as a range of unwritten oral
vernaculars will not survive for long if it is not being transmitted in the family. As in the
Isle of Man, it may be argued that continued use of at least one version of an endangered
language is preferable to the loss of all of them. It can also be argued that in a post-
vernacular language (Shandler 2006), promoting an idea, or even an impression, of a
heritage language may be as valid an aim as copying what is perceived to have been
traditional usage.
Development of a distinctive orthography is often linked to Ausbau (see Chapter 3)
and the promotion of language for differentiation. In the terms of Eloy (2004) and Eloy
and hIfearnin (2007), all these island languages can be seen as collateral to larger
neighbouring languages, i.e. linguistically, geographically and culturally close, but they
may also be perceived as inferior to, or as dialects of, their larger neighbours (see
Chapter 2). The use of French-style spelling can also be interpreted as implying that the
island languages are inferior forms of French. A Jersey interviewee commented:

Where weve used instructions [in Jrriais] in the past, e.g. please pay here and
park, most French people have thought its just badly written French. (JE03)

The use of apostrophes to indicate that Guernesiais does not have as many schwa
sounds as French can also give the impression of inadequacy, or that it is slang or
deficient French.
Although spoken revitalised Manx is more standardised than traditional Jrriais or
Guernesiais (see Chapter 4), and most informants who speak Manx insist that there is a
standard spelling, there seems to be more tolerance than in Jrriais lessons. Although
Manx spelling was designed by and for bilinguals literate in English, the spelling is not
necessarily transparent and teachers notice spelling pronunciation. A teacher at the
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh expressed no disapproval when a child who had been in Manx-
medium education for three to four years wrote mora mie instead of moghrey mie (good
day), i.e. a more phonetically transparent version, when I visited the school in November
2012. There also seem to be two equally accepted spellings of the word Gaelic in
Manx: Gaelg/Gailck (Ager 2009: 15). The adjectival form may be spelt <G(h)aelgagh>,
as in Bunscoill Ghaelgagh or the Department of Educations Unnid Gaelgagh, or <
Ghailckagh > as in Yn heshaght Ghailckagh, the Manx Gaelic Society. (The variant
<G>~<Gh> marks gender through initial consonant mutation, although this is
occasionally omitted, as on a YouTube video of the Bunscoill Gaelgagh (sic).29)
Stowell (2005) uses <Ghailckagh>, while Stowell (2000) uses both this and
<Ghaelgagh>. Neither he nor papers about Manx spelling by Sebba (1998) and
hIfearnin (2007a) mention a reason for this variation.
Clague (2009a and personal communication) has catalogued carvalyn or carvals,
verses in Manx whose written form dates from the mid eighteenth to late nineteenth
centuries, which were sung or chanted in chapels and churches on Christmas Eve. She
notes that although there was some influence from the Manx Bible, the carvalyn were
largely written in a way that was trying to show the sounds: the writers were not
following any dictionary or rule-based system. As in some Guernesiais writings (e.g. by
Marjorie Ozanne, collected by Hill (2000)), the same word is spelt in many different
ways, some of which may indicate a degree of uncertainty regarding parts of speech.
The Manx spelling system, originally developed for priests who were literate in
English, is riddled with exceptions and some inconsistencies (Kewley Draskau 2008:
xix). As stated by Sebba (1998), one of the most persistent criticisms is that it does not
resemble the orthographies of its closest relatives, Scots and Irish Gaelic. The view of
Douglas Fargher, compiler of a seminal Manx dictionary, is quoted by both Sebba (1998)
and hIfearnin (2007a):

My own view, also shared by many respected and authoritative speakers of the
language, is that this system is a historical abomination, separating, as it does, Mann
from the rest of Gaeldom, and thus destroying the linguistic unity of the Gaels
without replacing it with anything better in the way of a truly phonetic orthography.
(Fargher 1979: vi)

However, Sebba (2007: 66) comments that while the English-influenced spelling
paved the way for transitional bilingualism and the loss of Manx as a spoken language,
. . . it may have helped to preserve Manx as an independent language when it could have
been constructed as a dialect of Scottish or Irish Gaelic. hIfearnin (2007a) conducted
research into a perceived debate about making a new Gaelic orthography for Manx and
found divided opinions. He points out that:

Acutely aware of the orthography wars which have divided people in Cornwall and
Brittany, many respondents were fearful of any major debate on reforming the
Manx orthographic system at all, let alone adopting a Gaelic one, for fear of
 possible ill-feeling among the small speech community.
( hIfearnin 2007a: 167)

hIfearnin (ibid.) also recognises that due to Norse influence and language change
in Manx, it would not be straightforward to map Irish or Scottish Gaelic-style spelling on
to Manx.
It can thus be seen that from a similar situation, where the majority of the population
are monolingual and literate in English but the indigenous language is collateral to, or
roofed by, the language of a neighbouring larger country, the Isle of Man and Jersey
have chosen diametrically opposite orthographic solutions.
Guernesiais differs in that it has no universally recognised or officially sanctioned
standard spelling; although the De Garis dictionary (1967, 1982) is perceived by many as
a prestige model, it is inconsistent and difficult to use in practice. Learners, and some
speakers and latent speakers, find pronunciation difficult to deduce from current written
materials, especially given inconsistencies in spelling practices (see Sallabank 2002).
Spelling pronunciation is a problem for performers in the Eisteddfod festival, for
example (see Chapter 4). There are contradictions between stated and observed practices:
most of the respondents to my language use questionnaire who said they wrote in
Guernesiais reported following the De Garis dictionary. Despite this, and exhortations by
some Eisteddfod adjudicators to use the Dictionary, an examination of written pieces in
Guernesiais shows that in practice, writers often use idiosyncratic spelling. Common
trends include English-influenced <sh> for the // sound instead of French <ch>, and the
omission of written grammatical endings which are silent in both spoken French and
Guernesiais. Experiences when recording passages for speaker-evaluation research
reinforced the conclusion that, in the absence of any literacy training in Guernesiais, even
native speakers are not aware of its structure (or of French spelling and grammar) and
find themselves unable to relate the written form to the spoken one, either when reading
or writing. Learners make their own attempts to render the sounds, which are generally
influenced by English spelling: for example, <bear> where a worksheet has <bere> [to
drink] or <oo> for <us> [door].
In 2009 the Guernsey Language Officer proposed an interim Progressive learner
spelling which was intended both to promote the concept of Guernesiais being a
language in its own right rather than a dialect of French, and to facilitate acquisition by
Anglophones. This proposal was received positively by young adult and adult learners,
and by some speakers. But it was received negatively by leading volunteer teachers, who
prefer the French-based spelling in the 1967 De Garis dictionary (although this too is
inconsistent). Spelling has proved to be a symptom of deep-seated issues to do with fear
of language change and the direction of language maintenance/revitalisation. Suggesting
that Guernesiais might come out from under the roof of French (Kloss 1967, 1978;
Muljai 1989) is not necessarily welcomed by traditionalists. As we recount in
Marquis and Sallabank (2013):

In August 2010 the authors conducted a small-scale experiment, asking both native
speakers and learners of Guernesiais to listen to recorded words and phrases and
write them however they felt looked right. While the resulting spellings are so
diverse as to be difficult to analyse for the purposes of orthography development,
the process was very revealing of attitudes and ideologies. Learners were more
willing to have a go than native speakers, some of whom expressed concern that
they might not spell correctly and even seemed too intimidated to try. The
experiment itself was strongly criticised by a prominent speaker with considerable
influence in the community, who raised concerns about what was perceived as an
attempt to change the language by challenging traditional prestige spelling.

We concluded that even discussion of orthography in a context of language

revitalisation (as opposed to maintenance; see Chapter 1) is perceived by self-identified
traditionalists as driving, rather than reflecting, language change (or the perceived
rejection of French as a High language in favour of English), and is therefore rejected as
pernicious.
With regards to Manx, Sebba (1998), echoed by Matras (1999) with reference to
Roma, suggests that literacy is usually introduced to a Low, vernacular language through
the dominant High one. Marie Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008)
speculates that despised languages might follow a more natural development route,
uninhibited by a written form or literary tradition. She points out that most traditional
native speakers of Manx were not literate in the language (which is confirmed by Sebba
(2000)); this is also the case currently for traditional speakers of Guernesiais and Jrriais.
A potential solution, crowd sourcing, was suggested by a teacher of Scottish Gaelic,
Dibhidh Grannd (personal communication, 8 April 2012): you facilitate the community
of practice to decide on a standard orthography, issue by issue. By monitoring practice
(especially in online media) a more organic, bottom-up, koine-type spelling may emerge,
akin to how larger languages without a language authority develop, e.g. English. Grannd
claims that Breton orthography was established by this method rather than by a
committee of experts or language academy, but there are competing orthographies for
Breton (McDonald 1989; Wmffre 2007). At first impression this might seem suitable for
Guernesiais because a committee of experts would not be accepted by traditionalists in
Guernsey unless it consisted solely of their own nominees. However, a problem with
implementing this approach in Guernsey is the very small number of people who speak
Guernesiais fluently, the majority of whom do not write it regularly, especially not using
electronic media. For corpus planning in endangered languages, the challenge is first
create your crowd.

6.5.1 Terminology development

From the previous section and from 5.4.1, it is evident that the development of lexical
terms for non-traditional items is not felt to be a priority by traditionalist Guernsey
language supporters. Traditional speakers often find it easier to import an English term
than to think of a Guernesiais paraphrase due to attrition, which can lead to language
mixing and contact influence ironically, just what traditionalist language supporters
want to avoid. There is a commonly held opinion that Guernesiais has not developed
since the 1940s, which informants illustrate by stating that it has not developed terms for
new concepts such as refrigerators and bathrooms; however, this is contested by other
speakers, who point out that l boin /l bj/ is commonly used for bathroom. As
Marquis and I (2013) note, this is another aspect of the perception of Guernesiais as a
language of the past, frozen in an idealised, pure form. On the other hand, several
informants commented that as English borrowed so many terms from Norman, it is not
problematic for Guernesiais to borrow back words such as shop (which some claim is an
old Norman term) as the return of a long-term loan.
In the Isle of Man, language development is embedded in the 1985 governmental
decision to support Manx. It set up Coonceil ny Gaelgey (The Manx Gaelic Advisory
Council), which is responsible for Manx translations of summaries of new laws which
are read out in Manx on Tynwald Day each year, as well as translations of the names of
government departments, streets and similar terms (Ager 2009). It also provides new
Manx terminology as necessary (Stowell 2005), but standardising spelling is not
mentioned as part of its remit. As the Council only meets four times a year, it is difficult
for it to keep up with the demand for translations and new words, and as reported in
Chapter 4, the Manx-medium school especially cannot always wait for an official
coinage. The Manx Language Officer reports that the Council has therefore started to
discuss cases arising between meetings via email.
Jersey does not have a language academy or terminology committee, so LOffice du
Jrriais provides new words as required, developed after research and scrutiny and used
in modern situations (Dictionnaithe Anglliais-Jrriais 2008). LOffice du Jrriais is keen
to promote a contemporary role for Jrriais. Its blog30 includes a regular topical
vocabulary section; for example, following a British-Irish Council meeting the following
list was posted on 20 November 2012:

chrge = remit
chrgi = task
clise dpolitique = policy area
dgangue d faithe et dfinni = task and finish group
drannettie sociale = social networking
pallion dconsulttion = forum for consultation
parchonnnie dbouonne part = constructive relationship
progranme davanchchie = forward work programme
progranme du travas vnn = future work programme
 seurvilyi = monitor [verb]

The Whats new? section of the website states:

Jrriais is a language of the past and the future

Jrriais is the language of our culture. It has been spoken here for hundreds of years
and the history and the thoughts of our people can be found in its words, phrases
and sayings. At the same time, Jrriais is a language of the future, because you can
speak on any subject in it. We have all the words we need and any we lack can be
invented!31

It can be seen from this that language change or modernisation is not perceived as
problematic in Jersey to the same extent as in Guernsey. Voluntary groups dominated by
traditional speakers seem to have ceded control of language policy to LOffice du
Jrriais. This may be due to the fact that traditional speakers are aging and reducing their
activities, or they may simply not be aware of what is being said in online media. It may
also reflect a longer time span to develop a working relationship since the establishment
of LOffice in 1998. In 2000 some Jersey activists reported disagreements between
language support groups, which seem to have been resolved since. There are occasional
criticisms of terminological coinages, especially where words are borrowed from French
or English and rendered with Jrriais spelling, e.g. progranme above, compiuteu or
ordinnnateu (computer, taken from English and French respectively), or the long-
standing borrowing ssse-paine (saucepan). Although in such instances spelling is being
used to differentiate Jrriais, it can also be perceived as indicating deficiencies.

6.6 Language in education

There is debate in language revitalisation movements worldwide about the role of
schools (e.g. Hornberger and King 1996). Having an endangered language taught in
schools tends to be a key aim of campaigners, although the received wisdom among
researchers is that of Fishman (1991): promoting the speaking of a language in the home
is the most effective way of saving it. It is by no means certain that children who learn a
language only at school will speak it outside, and even less certain that they will raise
children speaking it, especially as the kind of language they learn at school is not the
kind used in childcare, although Cooper (1989: 13) notes that in Israel (which in many
ways is an exceptional case) what led to the use of Hebrew at home was its prior
promotion as the language of instruction at school. In Guernsey, many of my informants
stated that a major reason for stopping speaking Guernesiais in the home was that it was
not approved of in school. Low prestige is reinforced by the education system, which is
one reason for the key symbolic role that gaining acceptance in schools plays in many
revitalisation movements aims, as it increases status, prestige and perceived utility.
 Language-in-education planning can range from very small amounts of extra-
curricular teaching to bilingual and immersion/minority-language-medium education.
Grenoble and Whaley (2006) maintain that teaching the minority language as a subject is
not an adequate response, citing UNESCO (2003c: 12A): Education in the language is
essential for language vitality (emphasis in original). However, experiences such as that
of the Isle of Man show that starting on a small scale can be necessary in order to gain
the acceptance of the majority population: optional extra-curricular classes led eventually
to a full Manx-medium school. However, this does not currently seem to be on the
agenda in Jersey or Guernsey.
Jrriais and Guernesiais are not part of the school curriculum. The only school-based
provision is half an hour of optional extra-curricular lessons, usually after school but
some before school or in the lunch hour. In Guernsey all the teaching is undertaken by
volunteers, but in Jersey teaching is coordinated by lOffice du Jrriais, funded by the
government through, and managed by, Le Don Balleine Trust. The hosting and timing of
lessons is dependent on the goodwill of individual schools (sometimes with pressure
from parents).
Despite the overt focus on lessons, Jrriais and Guernesiais have not been adopted into
the official school curriculum, and what is more, so far very few of the children attending
have progressed beyond beginner level. Yet several supporters assert that these extra-
curricular lessons will be effective in maintaining Guernesiais or Jrriais. A Jersey
activist commented that the lessons were the only way it was going to outlast my
generation. As Marquis and I (2013) observe, there appears to be a perhaps simplistic
faith in the ability of schools to save the language, as well as a mismatch between
stated aims and realistic outcomes due to the quantity of exposure to the languages, the
teaching methods, and also the lack of resources and teacher training. Although lessons
in Jersey are run on a more professional footing, States rhetoric in support of language
teaching has not translated into resources or curriculum time (however, some schools
allow Jrriais to be taught in lesson time). In Jersey a GCSE-equivalent (UK school
leaving level) qualification has been introduced with the aim of raising the prestige of
Jrriais and of taking it as an option, but at the time of writing no students have passed it,
and only one has attempted it. Approximately 200 children are enrolled in Jrriais
classes, but the extra-curricular nature of the classes is not ideal: a teacher commented,
Half an hour before school, half an hour in the lunch hour . . . The teaching is
inefficient, we have to do it out of curriculum . . . one or two of [the teachers] almost
spend more time on the road than teaching. In response to such problems, in 2012 the
management committee introduced a new system to concentrate lessons in four regional
school bases or Pallions, but children are dependent on parents (who may be working) to
transport them between schools; it remains to be seen whether this system increases take-
up of Jrriais.
Manx is available as an optional subject, as part of the curriculum, in approximately
half of the islands schools. A former Language Officer commented that there is still
opposition from some head teachers to including Manx as an option:

Theyre just not interested in the language and dont see why anybody else would be
which is a bit strange for a teacher, especially a head teacher. Youd think theyd
want a fantastic variety of things going on in their schools.

A team of paid, trained peripatetic teachers is coordinated by the Manx Language

Officer employed by the Education Department. A GCSE-equivalent qualification
(equivalent to level A2B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages) and a more advanced A-level equivalent (B2)32 are taken by a handful of
students every year, and Rob Teare, Department of Education Manx Language Officer,
reports that several learners progress to a point where Manx becomes his default
language with them and that he is keen for the achievements of these learners and of the
programme to be recognised.33
Both Jersey and the Isle of Man have promoted such examinations in order to raise the
prestige of the indigenous languages, as well as to provide a tangible goal for learners.
But Rob Teare warned of practical problems in administering and validating high-stakes
tests in very small languages, where the language teachers, test setters and examiners
may be the same people and the students may well be known to them. The Manx
examinations are validated by a Northern Ireland examination board, Manx being similar
enough to Irish to be verified.
The Isle of Man is the only one of the three jurisdictions to date to undertake
immersion education in the indigenous language. A Manx-medium class within a
mainstream primary school was launched in 2001. The Manx-medium classes moved to a
separate building in 2003, renovating an old school symbolically situated opposite
Tynwald Hill, a key site in Manx identity construction. In 2006 the Bunscoill Ghaelgagh
(Gaelic elementary school) became a stand-alone separate primary school with its own
headteacher. Clague (2009b) provides details of the history and development of the
Bunscoill, and reports on research she conducted into parental motivations for choosing
immersion education and the linguistic backgrounds of the children. Clague reports that
the major motivation for choosing the school was General benefits of a bilingual
education, followed by Long-term interest in Manx language revival. However, the
number of children with parents or other family members who speak Manx is low. Only
four out of the twenty-one children have parents or other family members who are fluent
Manx speakers, and they do not claim to speak Manx as the main language of the home
(Clague 2009b: 187). Small class size was the third most common reason given, and
featured strongly in my own interviews with parents at the school in 2008. The majority
of the children attending Bunscoill Ghaelgagh previously attended a playgroup or
nursery where Manx was used.
 Owing to a lack of childcare professionals fluent in Manx, it is not currently possible
to provide fully Manx-medium pre-school education in addition to the primary school
and two secondary immersion classes. The practical problems of a lack of teachers with
language and subject knowledge as well as teacher training, and reliable and well-
produced teaching and learning materials, are a major hindrance to the implementation of
immersion and bilingual education in minority and endangered languages worldwide. In
North America some indigenous groups have negotiated exceptions to requirements for
teacher qualification requirements to allow unqualified native speakers to teach their
languages. However, as seen in Guernsey and Jersey, this is not a long-term solution:
these speakers are likely to be already near or past retirement age, and their lack of
teacher education means that their teaching methods are unlikely to be the most effective.
As noted in Chapter 6, the Jersey government website described Jrriais as precious.
Colette Grinevald and Bndicte Pivot (2010) of the University of Lyon, France, use
similar terminology (treasure) to describe the Rama language of Nicaragua, which is
likewise highly endangered. Rama has virtually no native speakers but, like Manx, has
been introduced into bilingual education.

25 years later, the Ramas attitude towards their ethnic language has changed: it has
become a precious asset they are proud of, one they refer to as their treasure
language . It is their language , our language, one they own and that makes
them identifiable individuals, distinct from other ethnic groups . . ., a language that
has no purpose of ever being spoken fluently again, a language that isnt and
probably never will be a mother tongue again. But the demand remains strong in the
community to have this treasure language revitalized within a formal education
programme for school children.

Rama is now primarily used for symbolic ritual purposes. Pivot and Grinevald point
out that there needs to be clarification regarding

the particular status of these endangered languages of strong symbolic value, which
become objects of revitalization programmes with no aim for revernacularization.
Their transmittal raises the question of a relevant didactic approach, yet to be
invented at this point. If this challenge isnt faced, there will remain a great
confusion in the minds of local revitalization players and an education system
claiming to be multicultural and bilingual (or multilingual) but doesnt acknowledge
the special status of treasure language [JF1].

However, Clague (personal communication, November 2008) claimed that despite

criticisms of reliance on immersion education for language revitalisation, in a context
where there are no native speakers, an education-based approach is the only way to
maintain a language; this is also argued by Wilson (2009). Clague recommended that
there should be follow-up studies of children after Manx-medium education, as
eventually the majority of speakers will have come through the education system, as will
the language they speak. However, there are also a significant number of children
learning Manx through optional subject lessons as part of the school curriculum.
The Bunscoill is promoted as the jewel in the crown of Manx language revitalisation
and receives numerous visits annually from language activists, academics, politicians,
educationalists, officials and TV crews from all over the world. It is run not by the
Education Department but by a voluntary trust, Mooinjer Veggey, which also runs the
Manx pre-schools. One secondary school provides Manx-medium tuition in two or three
subjects (depending on demand and resources), but not all former Bunscoill children are
able to attend it.
In both the Isle of Man and Jersey, teachers reported that planning was somewhat ad
hoc: for example, the decision to open the St Johns Manx-medium school was approved
at the last minute, so materials could not be prepared in advance. In Jersey, a member of
Le Don Balleine management board reported that:

We had no materials, nothing at all . . . Tony [Scott-Warren, Language Officer]

begged, borrowed and stole from the Isle of Man and Wales and we had been
offered . . . French Salut Jersey, it was very starchy formalised stuff didnt make it
fun . . . the books that were adopted and adapted were from the Isle of Man,
pickpocketed with their blessing. They were only too happy to help.

Marquis and Sallabank (forthcoming) report that in Guernsey in 200910, a group of

students aged 1618 requested lessons in Guernesiais as one of their college options.
Some of the students proved to be very keen and produced a childrens book and CD in
Guernesiais, because they wanted to pass on what they had learnt to younger children.
Furthermore, several of the students were considering mainstream teaching careers and
participated in an initiative to pass on their knowledge of Guernesiais to primary school
pupils. However, reactions to these attempts from older volunteer teachers ranged from
scepticism (theyll never be good enough to teach the language) to outright
disapproval.34
In Jersey and Guernsey there have been efforts to introduce indigenous language taster
sessions into the mainstream school curriculum as part of local studies or citizenship
classes. In Jersey, since 2012 these have been taught by members of LOffice du Jrriais
in the first term of the academic year, and several children observed in November 2012
reported having been inspired to sign up for Jrriais classes following this exposure.
In the Isle of Man, too, it is recognised that children need motivation to sign up for
optional classes. A teacher commented youve got to convince them that its the real
thing and cool thing to be doing. Children are given some exposure to Manx through
music workshops (another way the government funds Manx): children who are perhaps
not doing Manx but discover that Manx music is pretty lively and so on and that all
enhances the image of Manx. However, another informant commented that folk music
might not be motivating to all teenagers.
The children who were observed in Jrriais lessons clearly enjoyed them. However,
this needs to be considered alongside the apparent fact that there is no linguistic syllabus
to facilitate progression, as another teacher complained. It is therefore necessary to ask
whether awareness-raising and encouraging children to enjoy Jrriais is a satisfactory
goal at primary level, or whether progression to higher levels of proficiency is expected
or required? It is unclear whether such questions have been addressed openly. When I
observed lessons in 2012, the lack of integration of Jrriais into schools was raised by
officers as problematic, both on a practical level (e.g. with regard to behaviour
management), and also because of the lower or adjunct status that its peripatetic position
confers on Jrriais.
Education is only as good as the teachers, and the lack of training in age-appropriate
language teaching methods in Jersey and Guernsey seems likely to contribute to the lack
of progression. As noted earlier, Jrriais lessons are heavily book-based, at the expense
of oral self-expression.
The supply of language-proficient teachers with teaching qualifications is a challenge
for most minority-language education programmes, as well as in content-based language
teaching (also known as content and language integrated learning) in major international
languages worldwide. In all three islands, concern is voiced regarding the future supply
of trained, fluent language teachers. The Manx Language Development Officer has
identified increasing the number of fluent adult speakers as a priority, and is developing
new courses. Gawne (2002) complains that little or no action has been taken to
introduce effective teacher training or to address the understaffing of the Manx language
programme. Since this report was written, some progress has been made: one teacher
attended a college for Gaelic bilingual teachers in Scotland, while another is undertaking
in-service training. It might be possible for Channel Island teachers to attend training in
the UK or Brittany, or at least to observe other foreign language lessons, as one Jrriais
teacher had taken the initiative to do. Courses for teachers of English as a Foreign
Language, which are run in Jersey, might be adapted.
However, this would require both government commitment to the future of the
teaching programme in terms of funding and staff development, and willingness on the
part of the teachers to accept the need for further training. Some teachers in Jersey would
welcome such opportunities, whereas in Guernsey, as mentioned in Chapter 5, the
predominant ideology among the volunteer teachers is native-speakerism (Medgyes
1992; Houghton and Rivers 2013): having been exposed to Guernesiais as a child is
deemed to be the best (and only necessary) qualification for teaching the language.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, there is very little higher education in the islands. A
Guernsey seventeen-year-old interviewed expressed a desire to stay on the island, but
recognised the necessity of going to the UK to further her education. Liverpool
University has a postgraduate Centre for Manx Studies (part-funded by the Isle of Man
government) which has a branch on the island. A similar arrangement in the Channel
Islands with another university such as Southampton (with which the islands traditionally
have strong links), Caen in Normandy (where Guernsey law students have to spend a
term to learn Norman law) or Plymouth (which runs courses through the Jersey College
of Further Education) might be one way of retaining young people who are interested in
contributing to island cultural development.
Following the announcement of the new government initiative to support Guernesiais
described in 6.3.4, Deputy Duquemin stressed in a tweet that the Guernsey Language
Commission must recognise that adult education is the key first step to creating new
fluent Guernsey French speakers.35 However, from my own observations it would
appear that while lessons are valuable in providing a structured guide to the language, for
adult learners and new speakers a more important factor in success in learning Jrriais
and Guernesiais is opportunities to practice and speak. As mentioned in 4.4, the
challenge in learning a highly endangered language is finding such opportunities.

6.7 Language in the community

As noted above, formal education does not guarantee that a language will be used outside
school, especially if learners do not perceive that there is a community of users which
they are able to join and which they will be welcomed by. There is a danger that if the
state takes responsibility for language maintenance, voluntary groups, individuals or
families might feel that they are not required to take the initiative themselves. Isle of Man
teachers reported that while some families with children at the Bunscoill make an effort
to use Manx at home, there are fewer cases of this than in earlier campaigning days:
language transmission may be delegated to the school.
In his 2010 strategic planning document and annual budget plans, the Isle of Man
Language Development Officer Adrian Cain (personal communication, 15 November
2012) uses the standard Acquisition Status Corpus language planning framework,
but adds a further dimension: planning for language use, which includes developing the
use of Manx in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The activities proposed under
this heading involve chiefly the production of online language resources to use the
Internet for both PR and also to help learners and speakers, which might be argued to
come under acquisition, status and prestige planning rather than a separate heading.
However, it is a refreshing alternative to the common (often exclusive) emphasis on the
education domain in language revitalisation.
In Guernsey and Jersey, apart from lessons and the annual Eisteddfod language
festivals there are few opportunities to actually use Jrriais and Guernesiais, and no
family transmission. Under How can I use Jrriais?, lOffice du Jrriais website states:
 Sadly, Jrriais is an endangered language; once upon a time, just about everyone in
Jersey spoke it. However, the number of speakers has dwindled over the years, as
English has taken over. We need to remember that it is as important a part of our
heritage as l Vir Cht (Mont Orgueil) and les vaques Jrriaises (Jersey cows).
We want to keep it as a living language.36

As in Guernsey, the traditional speaker community has reduced considerably, but is

not yet being replenished by language planning measures (see also Sallabank 2010a).
The page seems to be addressed mainly at organisations and offers help in promoting
your business, your product, your organisation or your event in Jrriais, but does not
offer non-educational opportunities to speak Jrriais. Readers are, however, exhorted:
You should use Jrriais with the older generation, the younger generation, your friends
and even with your pets.
In Sallabank (2010a) I discuss research which indicates that the availability of
interlocutors correlates strongly with fluency in Guernesiais, for both native speakers and
learners. The increasing age and isolation of many native speakers contributes to both
individual and societal language loss. I argue that it is still possible to maintain
Guernesiais if measures can be implemented soon to restore or replace traditional
networks of social interaction with measures designed to provide opportunities for
interaction with other speakers and learners.
Examples of measures already in place include a Manx-medium youth club, a football
team attached to the Bunscoill Ghaelgagh, pub evenings, social evenings organised by
societies in Jersey and Guernsey, and formerly, a Manx walking club. Of course, these
need not be formally or centrally organised learners and new speakers need to take
responsibility for their own learning in order to become autonomous language users. One
Guernsey interviewee, who is a latent speaker of Guernesiais (in the terms of Basham
and Fathman (2008), i.e. who understands but does not actively speak the language),
reported visiting old people to give them an opportunity to speak their native language.
Campaigners bemoan the failure to transform this type of latent understanding, or
competence in language acquisition terminology (e.g. Scovel 1998), into active use
(performance), but to do so needs careful encouragement and support.
Other possibilities tried elsewhere include the Master (or Mentor)Apprentice
schemes pioneered by Native American communities in California. Fluent speakers
(usually older) are paired one-to-one with learners or latent speakers (Hinton 1994, 1997;
Hinton and Hale 2002; Reyhner et al. 2003), in order to improve learners fluency and
long-term commitment, and involve native speakers. Similar schemes, termed language
volunteering or befriending, have been piloted in Spain (for Catalan and Aranes) and
in southern France for Occitan. In Ireland and Wales there are cafs or social centres
designated as spaces where the minority language is preferred. Lee and McLaughlin
(2001: 389) list twenty-four suggestions under What pairs of persons can do, What
families can do and What communities can do.

6.8 Conclusions
This chapter shows how three islands with many social, political and sociolinguistic
similarities, and a considerable degree of contact and cross-fertilisation between
government officials and Language Officers, have all chosen a similar route for language
planning (the appointment of Language Officers), but have different levels of political
commitment and funding, and have implemented quite different policies.
Although it might be argued that unplanned language planning (Baldauf 19931994)
is a necessary feature of enthusiast-driven language planning, especially at the early
stages of awareness of language endangerment, it seems that for measures to proceed
beyond awareness-raising a degree of conscious planning and public support is
necessary. The form and level of that support is a matter for public discussion, which
arguably should entail some degree of ideological clarification (see Chapter 3) with
regard to short- and long-term objectives and strategies. To date overt discussion of these
seems to be lacking, or stifled, in Guernsey and Jersey, with the result that there is a
mismatch between what stated goals there are, and effective action to achieve those
goals.
 7 Implications

7.1 Emerging themes

This final chapter draws together strands from the earlier ones in order to consider
implications for the formulation of effective policies for endangered language
revitalisation. In doing this I will also consider what effective means in these contexts,
how it might be measured and what language revitalisation might entail.
Some general trends can be identified from these case studies, as well as in other
contexts around the world. Firstly, in language policy and planning there is a lack of
straightforward causal connections: outcomes depend on context, and the existence of a
policy does not necessarily mean that it will be implemented effectively (Schiffman
1996; Romaine 2002b; Spolsky 2004). This reinforces the observation that beliefs,
attitudes and ideologies are key elements in both the formulation and the implementation
of language policy, so identifying and addressing these beliefs becomes highly relevant.
There is, however, a lack of well-defined models for analysing and comparing
different policy approaches, or ways to evaluate outcomes that can be applied across
different settings (Ricento 2006). Perhaps part of the same trend may be a reluctance to
measure or evaluate language revitalisation; aims may deliberately be left unclear in
order to avoid disputes (Ray Harlow, personal communication, 6 July 2011). The islands
examined in this book are no exception. Nevertheless, this chapter will attempt to
evaluate the islands language policies, both on their own terms (which may need to be
deduced or deconstructed), and by drawing comparisons and learning points, both for
these islands and for other contexts.
Another widespread trend in language revitalisation is for both grass-roots
campaigners and government language planners to focus on formal education as the
principal route to increasing speaker numbers, despite evidence that children educated in
or through a minority language do not necessarily continue speaking it in social contexts
or in the home (Edwards and Newcombe 2005a; Hornberger 2008). In addition,
language-as-subject lessons often do not lead to fluent use of a language without further
practice or motivation (Ellis 2008).
A parallel and not unrelated theme is the technocratisation of language revitalisation,
including an increasing variety of multimedia and online dictionaries and learning
programmes. These can increase awareness of and access to a language, and motivate
younger learners, but might on the other hand be seen as reliance on technical fixes
(Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1998) rather than the ostensibly more straightforward
approach of simply using a language more. Another common focus in planning for
minority languages is increasing the visibility of a language in the written environment or
linguistic landscape (Landry and Bourhis 1997; Cenoz and Gorter 2006; Gorter et al.
2011), which was discussed in Chapter 6.
The approach taken by government-sponsored language planning in the Isle of Man
and Jersey, and also by some language supporters in Guernsey, can be interpreted as
adhering to a top-down/modernist/Western, standards-driven ideology or model of
what language is and does, which, some commentators argue, reproduces the hegemonic
attitudes that minoritised certain ways of speaking in the first place (Woolard 1998;
Bielenberg 1999; Romaine 2002a).
Discussion of language status, education, and models of language inevitably entails
issues of authority and correctness, both in language itself and in decisions about
priorities and planning measures. Ideologies may become entwined with politics, both in
the way a community (however defined) relates to others, and the role of language in
self-definition; and also in intra-community dynamics. Beliefs and ideologies concerning
language change and correctness are related to potential challenges to who has authority
to speak on behalf of the community, and to make decisions regarding the future of an
endangered language (if indeed a future is envisaged).
Another theme which emerges from these case studies is the contingent but
interconnected nature of language planning. Even in the three relatively close and
comparable islands examined in this book, indigenous language support and
revitalisation have been addressed in quite different ways, even though the policies or
routes chosen may be nominally similar. Section 7.4.2 will look at the degree and
effectiveness of cross-fertilisation in language policy and planning, between these three
islands and beyond.
In order to investigate these themes, it is useful to take into account Fishmans concept
of [prior] ideological clarification (Fishman 1991, 2001; Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer
1998; Kroskrity and Field 2009) at all levels of language planning for endangered
languages, from governmental to grass-roots. The elephant in the room is what the
ultimate (and intermediate) aims of language policy are: until this is addressed there is
little chance that any policy will be implemented effectively.

7.1.1 From beliefs and attitudes to action

As discussed in Chapter 1, language policy is now viewed broadly as including language
practices, perceptions and ideologies at all levels of society. Pennycook (2010: 2) stresses
that language is a material part of social and cultural life rather than . . . an abstract
entity. His focus on situated and local practices suggests that diversity should be
regarded as normal rather than as deviation from an arbitrary standard, although it is not
clear how, if at all, this relates to policy-making and practical language planning. Spolsky
(2009a) maintains that language practices are the basis of language management; but in
his examples policy also influences practices. Makoni and Pennycook (2006: 22) stress
that they focus not only on real and situated forms of language, but on what the speakers
believe they should and ought to talk about, and how they analyse their talk as well.
Marquis and I (forthcoming) observe that beliefs and perceptions about practices,
especially quasi-purist views on what people should do, are more potent drivers of
unstated (or accidental) language policy, which can make or break stated and planned
policies. In this book I have attempted to describe:

what people actually do (observed language practices/behaviour);

what they think they do (perceived practice/behaviour);
what they think they should do or maybe preferably, what others should do
(which is informed by attitudes, ideologies and language policies).

It seems to be the second and third of these that drive language policies, and in turn
(perhaps) practices. People do not necessarily want to know how they actually speak,
even if presented with a recording how they think they speak and what they believe
about language are much more powerful. Research has to take into account practices,
discourses and ideologies, and evidence-based language policy development needs to
start from this point. But, as was pointed out by some colleagues from Lancaster
University (Anna Hultgren, Johnny Unger, personal communication, September 2010), it
should not necessarily stay there. Policy-making may entail changing ideologies which,
as noted above, relies on raising awareness of them. Concrete planning measures tend to
reflect widespread ideologies, but also, arguably, need to go beyond them in order to
have broad-reaching effect. Some language ideologies may preclude a broader vision,
however. Efforts by both voluntary and government-funded bodies in the Channel
Islands to date have contributed to more positive attitudes towards the indigenous
languages, but have not necessarily (yet) changed linguistic behaviour, or some
underlying ideologies.

7.2 Language: a link to the past, a bridge to the future?

The page of the Jersey government website devoted to Jrriais describes it as precious
because it is a treasury of information about the past as well as a symbol of Jerseys
independent identity in the present and something of value to pass on to the future.1
In an interview with local media during a language documentation training trip to
Guernsey in 2009, one of my Masters students, Catherine Jones, described Guernesiais as
a link to the past, a bridge to the future, expressing similar sentiments to the Jersey
government website and LOffice du Jrriais, which describes Jrriais as traditional and
modern. As was seen in Chapter 5, however, it seems to be easier to persuade members
of an endangered language community in both its narrow and broad senses of the
value of local language as heritage and tradition, rather than as a valid current and future
practice (with all that that entails in terms of development and empowerment).
The Foreword to the cultural strategy of the Guernsey governments Culture and
Leisure Department for 201014 stressed that preserving cultural identity does not
necessarily imply a purely preservationist, backward-looking perspective:

the cultural identity of Guernsey is forever moving on; change is a fact of life, and
should be embraced as an opportunity for expansion and development. The
challenge is to ensure that change is balanced with the continued care and respect
for cultural identity and historic environment.
(States of Guernsey 2010: 7).

With regard to Jersey, Johnson (2008b, 2010, 2013) observes that some traditions
which express island identity are in effect invented or re-invented. In a well-known quote
from an interview in 1985, Jean-Marie Tjibaou, a leader of the independence movement
in New Caledonia, stated that what are thought of as traditions are actually in a constant
state of evolution:

Le retour la tradition est un mythe ... Aucun peuple ne la jamais vcu. La

recherche didentit, le modle, pour moi il est devant soi, jamais en arrire. Cest
une reformulation permanente.
(Tjibaou 1985: 1601)

(The return to tradition is a myth. No people has ever experienced it. Insofar as I am
concerned, the search for identity, the model, lies before us, never behind. It is being
constantly reformulated
[translation from Waddell 2008: 102].)

This quote, originally aimed at people struggling for self-determination on the other
side of the world, is just as relevant to the revitalisation of heritage languages in twenty-
first-century Europe as to cultural traditions. However, this acceptance of cultural
identity as dynamic, and of language as both traditional and modern, is not fully shared
by everyone involved in language-related activities. In Guernsey especially, there are
tensions between the maintenance of the community who speak [a language], the
language ownership attitude described in Chapter 5 and the desire by some revitalisers
to have local languages and cultures continue in whatever form they may take
(Goodfellow 2009: 21).
In the Isle of Man, although some activists consider that attitudes towards the
language have changed since older community members died (see 5.2.2), it appears that a
degree of purist belief about language remains, especially in the discourse of continuity,
which sees the most legitimate speakers as those who learnt Manx from traditional
speakers (rather than through lessons), and the best Manx as resembling that used in the
eighteenth century (as perceived via the Manx Bible).
In the Channel Islands, and sometimes in the Isle of Man too, a language of the past
discourse tends to be the default image presented when language promotion is not carried
out in consultation with, or not controlled by, the Language Office. For example, an
article in Jrriais in the Jersey Evening Press in June 2000 was illustrated by a silhouette
caricature of two old men conversing, which had no relevance to the content of the
article. In 2008 I received a postcard from a non-speaker who supports Guernesiais
language maintenance and revitalisation, provided by an estate agent in Guernsey for
change of address notification, announcing Nou sra changier dmaisaon (were moving
house2), illustrated with old photos of families in a horse-drawn cart and posing on a pile
of timber.
In the Manx Museum in Douglas, recordings of traditional speakers of Manx can be
listened to, but they are juxtaposed with a recreation of the inside of a traditional rural
cottage, reinforcing associations of Manx with peasant, folklore and poverty. The
Manx National Heritage web page on the Manx language asserts that Since its inception,
Manx National Heritage has been a strong supporter of the Manx language. Manx
National Heritage was the first agency of Government to ensure that the Manx language
appeared on its letter-head . . . and has funded the post of a Manx Language
Development Officer. But this is the only page of the website to include a translation in
Manx, and it is illustrated by a photo of Harry Kelly, a Manx speaker who died in 1935
and whose cottage was the first acquired for the National Folk Museum in Cregneash
village. Conversely, Wilson (2011b) queries whether the Freedom to Flourish brand
ignores key aspects of the traditional cultural heritage of the Isle of Man in order to
emphasise more modern and dynamic characteristics of the islands economy and
society.
The point of highlighting these examples is not to be needlessly over-critical of what
are no doubt well-intentioned attempts to express support for local languages or to
integrate them into marketing (see Chapter 6); I am merely trying to point out potential
contradictions and ironies which may reflect unstated ideologies about language and
unintentionally undermine attempts to widen participation in language-related activities
(although the change of address cards may be intentionally ironic).
In terms of language planning approaches, a careful line needs to be trodden between a
nostalgic approach (which appeals to the traditional indigenous speaker base in Guernsey
and Jersey, most of whom are over the age of seventy) and what might appeal to younger
potential learners and supporters from less traditional backgrounds. As mentioned in
Chapter 5 and discussed later in this chapter, top-down policies in Jersey and the Isle of
Man may explicitly aim to create an inclusive island identity through indigenous
language, including young people and incomers.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in Chapter 5, there can be a mismatch between the aim of
encouraging new speakers and the conservative instincts of older community members.
As Costa (forthcoming b) argues with regard to Occitan in southern France, there is a
discrepancy between the stated desire of language revitalisation movements to teach the
language to young people, and frequent criticism of their linguistic achievements.
Parsons Yazzie and Reyhner (2009) observe a similar trend in a Navajo language
community in North America, citing an elder as stating:

Our grandchildren are buying things that we grandparents do not use, do not know
how to use or just have no use for. That is why we are having a hard time
communicating with our grandchildren. It is like living in two different homes. We
do not know how to name the things that are in our grandchildrens home, so we
have a hard time living there and we have a hard time talking with them. If our
grandchildren would get used to simple things again, then we will be able to speak
the same language again and live in the same home again.
(Parsons Yazzie and Reyhner 2009: 59)

But even if grandchildren could and wanted to stop using digital media and speak the
same language again (i.e. speak just like their grandparents, on topics of interest to
them), such statements could be seen as disingenuous. Costa (forthcoming b) argues:

In a postvernacular context, where the market is essentially symbolic, being a

legitimate speaker of a minority language can mean a wide variety of things that are
less and less concerned with grammatical or structural linguistic competence or
even, arguably, with communicative competence.

In an ideology of language ownership such as dominates in Guernsey, a new

speaker, no matter how fluent, can never become old, i.e. be considered to own the
language, since Guernesiais exists primarily in idealised memories of the language of
our youth. Joshua Fishman, an acknowledged authority on language revitalisation,
suggests that there might also be a subconscious reluctance to pass on a heritage
language:

Sometimes they [traditional speakers] may say they wish there was a younger
generation that knew the language, but they do not really do anything about it. At an
unconscious level, some of them may even enjoy being the last real native speakers
. . . Such people might be quite upset to find out that there is a young speaker or
there is still a club of young speakers . . . older speakers sometimes do not even seek
new ways of re-establishing the inter-generational connection in light of the fact that
they can only do the things they have been doing . . . They have their cohorts; they
have their hobby group or their club; and those things are age-graded. The things
they talk about, the things they sing about, are old age-graded and no young person
is going to get any pleasure out of these kinds of conversation.
(Fishman [1996] 2007: 169)
 In order to address and move on from such attitudes, they need to be acknowledged.
As noted above, in the Isle of Man this has happened to a certain extent (although there
has been no full recent survey of language attitudes). In Jersey, when contacting older
members of language associations I was repeatedly told go and see that [Tony] Scott
Warren (Language Officer), which indicates that overt responsibility for language policy
has been passed from traditional owners to the Language Office but as noted in
Chapter 5, purist beliefs regarding language practices remain, and as discussed in
Chapter 6, some covert negative language attitudes among members of government
departments and schools may undermine implementation. In Guernsey the discourses of
both community members and politicians (as well as of some linguists), while generally
supportive of the language, tend to assume that the community is homogeneous, or try
to ignore or paper over intra-communal tensions and disagreements. In Guernsey
especially, there has been a tendency to prioritise the maintenance of the existing or
traditional speaker community, and to valorise the perceived language practices of iconic
good speakers, ignoring the actual and potential contribution of new speakers or non-
speaker supporters. In an interview on Radio Guernsey in July 2011 about the
development of language policy following the resignation of the Language Officer, the
Minister for Culture and Leisure, Mike OHara, stated that he wanted to:

assist and strengthen the language and to encourage the sharing of the vast
experience of the present language speakers to enable training and succession
planning to develop . . . We cant just go off and say this is what youre gonna do
because they will feel threatened and we dont want that, but I would like to see a
body of some description that doesnt interfere with anything the Guernsey
language speakers do, and I think thats the way forward.

In all these three contexts (as well as in many others), there are stated and unstated
debates concerning correctness and language change as it may occur in revitalised
language. Some suggestions for further research into such linguistic changes were made
in Chapter 5. However, the implications for language planning of (perceived) language
change, and the need to cater for and valorise new generations of speakers, also need to
be investigated.
An Isle of Man politician, interviewed in November 2008, provided the following
advice for supporters of Guernesiais revitalisation:

Dont be looking for the old wood, look for new wood . . . a language moves on, if
you were gay thirty years ago it means totally different to what gay means today
a language moves on, and a living language needs to move on. Thats the absurdity
we had . . . we have, banana is corran buigh you know its absolute crap, if
bananas not English, banana is bananey! . . . consequently what youve got to do is
youve got to try and get people to realise that your language cant stay if you
 have them all fighting amongst themselves that we want to talk fourteenth-century
Guernesiais and twentieth-century Guernsey, a language you know, French,
English, German, they all take words from other languages, that doesnt make them
weak and I think thats what youve got to get over to people, you know,
bungalow is Indian . . . Youve got to get people saying Id rather youd say it
badly [than not at all] . . . and you need to get over to your learners that you dont
speak English perfectly at four and you might be a thirty-six-year-old or a
seventy-three-year-old, but youre a two-year-old at the language and you should be
encouraged . . . youve got to get rid of the elitism the oh well be the last speakers
sort of syndrome you know we had all that crap, dyou know what I mean, and we
got rid of that.

He also advised getting people involved in language promotion who do not speak the
language, and who may be unsuccessful when they try to learn, but who can provide help
in other areas, such as fundraising and technical support. In Guernsey some non-speakers
are keen to offer expertise but are not sure they are allowed to contribute:

If anyone wants any advice in computer-mediated education then Im willing to

pitch in of course but I have not pushed this since I think our priorities today are
with speakers. (GE13)

However, Deputy Duquemins presentation of the new Language Commission

initiative in February 2013 (see 6.3.4) included quotes from his consultative interviews,
including the following:

The language doesnt just belong to old people; give new people a voice.
Nostalgia glorifies the past, ignores the future.
Ownership issues.

This was the first time that such issues had been cited in public in Guernsey as
obstacles to progress. Personality and intra-community rivalries were also highlighted,
and Duquemin stressed that Nobody is bigger than the language. However, exhortations
to all sing from the same hymn-sheet have had little effect in the past, since each
faction assumes that the hymn-sheet should be their own. To attempt to circumvent such
problems, the Language Commission is composed entirely of people who have hardly
been involved in language-related activities and are not associated with any of the
factions, but who have expertise in fundraising, marketing and public relations, in effect
taking the advice of the Isle of Man politician. The main drawback to this approach is
that the members of the Commission know very little about the language itself or about
language policy and planning.
7.3 Is language policy about language?
Findings from both my own and other research indicate that language policy is not
necessarily about language itself: language is generally seen by activists and policy-
makers as serving other ends, such as political autonomy or empowerment of a (sub-
)group. Language may be mobilised or invoked as a necessary or logical component of
action as a political tool for an indirectly related political struggle, as often occurs in
indigenous rights movements (Boynton forthcoming). Campaigns for language rights or
language revitalisation can thus be seen as part of wider social movements and are
increasingly claimed to have wider social benefits (Dorian 1987; Ricento and Wiley
2002; Romaine 2008; King forthcoming).
According to King (forthcoming), activities associated with the revitalisation of the
Mori language, especially the language nest immersion pre-schools, were originally
conceived to improve general well-being among the indigenous Mori population, and to
counter delinquency, alcohol abuse and destitution, which are widespread among
indigenous populations in post-colonial contexts.
In Western countries, language revitalisation is often seen as a middle-class or
intellectual concern. Bilingualism is now recognised as conferring cognitive advantages,
especially when it is accompanied by social recognition and literacy in both languages
(Grosjean 1982; Cummins and Swain 1986; Bialystok 1991; Alladina 1995; Jessner
1995; Johnson et al. 1997; Swain 2000; Wei 2000; Baker 2001; Wei, Dewaele and
Housen 2002; Hornberger 2003a), but where this is widely known, as in the Isle of Man
or Wales, bilingual education tends to be adopted largely by middle-class families.
Several Bunscoill parents interviewed cited the benefits of bilingualism as a major reason
for choosing the Manx-medium school for their child; some admitted that they were not
necessarily Manx activists and would have been happy for their child to be immersed in a
more widely spoken language. As noted in 1.4, Mooinjer Veggey, the organisation which
runs the Bunscoill and Manx pre-schools, won a contract in the mid-2000s to run pre-
schools in disadvantaged areas; although it lost the contract in 2012, a major advantage
proposed was that the benefits of bilingualism should be available to children from less
advantaged backgrounds. In light of this, it was interesting to see the window of a family
support organisation in Guernsey dominated by the Guernesiais word Bianvnu
(welcome) in 2009 (see Figure 7.1). Although, in the past, speaking Guernesiais was
associated by Anglophones with hardship and the people who worked in the
greenhouse, the use of a Guernesiais word in this context nowadays is unlikely to be for
practical purposes: in terms of age and social background, recipients of family support
services may be among the least likely of Guernseys population to speak Guernesiais. In
relation to the promotion of local languages as inclusive, it is also interesting to note that
the letters of Bianvnu are surrounded by pictures of a multi-ethnic group of children.
Figure 7.1 Sign on family support service window, Guernsey, 2009

These examples of local languages being associated with social benefits may mean
that there is no longer a stigma attached to speaking them, at least among younger
generations; they may even be seen as cool. Earlier generations may have experienced
linguistic self-hatred, but increasingly it is perceived that pride in language and culture
can regenerate communities and individuals.
For some Guernesiais teaching volunteers, there seems to be a blurred line between
language revitalisation and personal revitalisation. As observed in Chapter 5, teaching
Guernesiais provides a powerful boost to their own self-image on two grounds: firstly by
affirming their language expertise, and secondly by enabling them to assuage any guilt
they might feel at not having taught Guernesiais to their own children and grandchildren.
Marquis and I comment that:

Due to the societal pressures . . . some of the volunteer teachers realised the
importance of linguistic heritage too late to raise their own children through
Guernesiais. There may thus be an unstated element of conscience-salving in
involvement in these sessions, which are thus not only (or even mainly) about
language transmission.
(Marquis and Sallabank 2013)

7.3.1 Identity and ideology in language policy and

implementation
Marquis and I (forthcoming) have identified two main diverging trends in language
ideologies in Guernsey, which for ease of description we call static and dynamic
viewpoints. We stress that for the most part these ideologies are implicit and have been
deduced from observations; and that, for ease of description again, they denote extreme
points on a continuum and by no means represent the points of view of the majority of
the speech community.
These ideologies profoundly influence language planning and policy, at both personal
and public levels. They have led to disputes regarding control over the direction of
language maintenance and revitalisation, as they are concerned with who has authority to
speak on behalf of the community and to make decisions regarding the future of an
endangered language.
The static view is held mainly by self-described traditionalists. In this ideology the
indigenous language has a mainly nostalgic value which is expressed through
performance rather than through day-to-day use. The focus of efforts is on the
maintenance of the remaining traditional language community, especially the authority
and legitimacy of its self-appointed spokespersons as language authorities, owners and
guardians, rather than on the development of proficient new users or uses (as in
Romaines (2006: 464) definition of revitalisation). In this view, French is still seen as
the High or roof language (in the terms of Kloss (1967)) and as the only valid source of
linguistic prestige. As noted in Chapter 5, it is linked to nostalgia for a bygone age, and
some of its espousers would rather Guernesiais did not survive than changed from the
idealised language of their youth.
Parallel to this we identify a dynamic view of language, whose proponents aim to
increase the number of new speakers, from any background, through second language
teaching and reactivating latent speakers, semi-speakers and rememberers (in the
terms of Grinevald and Bert (2011)), who are also seen as valid contributors to language
policy-making; as the future language owners, these new speakers are even deemed to
have precedence. Proponents of this view also aim to expand the domains of use of
Guernesiais and increase its prestige as a language in its own right. This may entail
language development in terms of vocabulary, orthography and distanciation from
French. Its proponents no doubt see this as a pragmatic viewpoint in that to retain some
of the language is better than none, but it is no less ideologically based than linguistic
purism.
These divergent ideologies in Guernsey reflect a deeply held subjective identification
with language, almost as a personal asset. They also reflect the tensions between
inclusive and exclusive views of language revivalism. In light of the rhetoric of
language of our youth in Guernsey, a language that exists only in the past will not exist
in the future (except perhaps in documentary archives). Marquis and I have suggested
that for some Guernesiais speakers, fear of language change is greater than the fear of
language death. This may even perhaps manifest itself in unwillingness to share full
competence, and subconsciously work against effective language teaching among some
volunteer teachers (Marquis and Sallabank 2013, forthcoming). In a counter-argument,
it might be claimed that traditional speakers relinquished their rights to own or
safeguard the language when they omitted to transmit it to their children. This might
seem harsh given that, as noted in Chapter 5, their choices of language practices were
heavily constrained by negative attitudes and modernising ideologies, which may even
now inhibit them from sharing full competence in the language with learners.
Nevertheless, there is clear interest from younger generations of potential speakers in all
three islands, which cannot be ignored, especially if we accept Pennycooks (2010: 2)
assertion, cited in 7.1.1, that language is a material part of social and cultural life rather
than . . . an abstract entity which can be owned (which reflects the current academic
ideological consensus concerning language).
Concerns about perceived Anglicisation, globalisation/homogenisation and
demographic swamping have encouraged both official and private bodies in the Channel
Islands and Isle of Man to use language to project a local or island image or identity.
Distinctiveness and local branding are seen by at least a sector of the local economy as
good for business, especially to market high-end products with local cachet such as
speciality foods and jewellery. As well as the place branding discussed in Chapter 6,
language is commonly used in a more overtly political role, as a vehicle or symbol for
ethnic, regional or national identity in attempts to gain or reinforce political
independence. Claims that varieties should be recognised as languages in their own right,
through Ausbau (Kloss 1967, 1993; Irvine 1989; Trudgill 1992) or individuation
(Marcellesi 1986; Thiers 1986; Marcellesi et al. 2003), can be used as evidence to
support political objectives. The islands are micro-polities which already have a large
degree of political autonomy, so there is less explicit mobilisation of language in support
of independence movements than, for example, in the Basque Country (Urtaga 2005;
Urla 2012) or Brittany (Kuter 1989; McDonald 1989; Evenou 2000; Hoare 2000; Judge
2007), but island politicians occasionally feel the need to reinforce island distinctiveness
through linguistic differentiation. This is one reason why, in all three islands, cultural
strategy (official and/or unofficial) promotes a distinctive cultural image to attract
tourists and international business.
hIfearnin (2010) suggests that there is a Europe-wide trend to use autochthonous
languages in the promotion of micro-state identity. The reasons are partly historical:
micro-states have not been immune to trends in their larger neighbours. Local languages
became minoritised because international intolerance of minority linguistic behaviour in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries led to micro-polities performing self-
suppression. However, more recently the trend towards international tolerance and
approval of native cultures in a Europe where indigenous minorities are now seen as
unthreatening post-traditional speech communities has let the micro-states promote and
use their languages . . . as symbolic assets for international commercial reasons and
legitimising their statehood ( hIfearnin 2010). This analysis is strengthened by some
of the findings of a research programme in political science, Micropolities in the
margins of Europe: postcolonial sovereignty games.3 Adler-Nissen and Gad (2012)
examine how states and state-like entities play sovereignty games to understand how
post-colonial entities (micro-polities on the outskirts of Europe) may use their ambiguous
status strategically in relation to sovereignty. Such games may include the mobilisation
of language and identity as an expression of a more abstract notion of how the colonised
can acquire sovereignty or independent agency.4
hIfearnin (2010) considers that the allocation of new roles to micro-states
languages, such as inclusive badges of identity, might constitute a denial of rights of
speakers in favour of the new heritage role for the national collective. This analysis is
consistent both with the trend for island language planners to emphasise the availability
of indigenous language and linguistic identity to all, and with the tensions in Guernsey
between traditionalists and activists who want to make Guernesiais more easily
available to new speakers. hIfearnin suggests that it might be problematic, however,
in that it has created an extremely ambiguous relationship between language activists
and their home states.
As discussed in Chapter 2, historically in the Isle of Man a focus on ethnic identity
was a key campaigning strategy for language activists. It can be difficult to untangle
government-sponsored language planning from unofficial activism in the Isle of Man, as
many non-governmental language organisations and projects receive government funding
and can thus to a large extent be seen as implementing as well as influencing official
language policy. Overtly, both activists and officials are happy for anyone to learn Manx,
but nationalist sentiments may well linger in private attitudes. From my observations in
2012, it would appear that tensions in the Isle of Man are not so much between language
activists and their home state as between what might be seen as older and newer cohorts
of speakers. Here older denotes fluent/highly proficient speakers who by and large
learnt Manx through interacting with acknowledged language authorities and who may
claim legitimacy through this; this cohort valorises Manx as their primary medium of
socialisation and business, for example they tend to speak to each other primarily in
Manx, to hold language planning meetings in Manx, etc. The newer cohort denotes
aspiring speakers who have learnt, or who are learning, Manx through lessons and may
feel excluded by a totally Manx environment. It also includes language supporters who
may not have the time or inclination to become fluent in Manx themselves, but who
support language maintenance and promotion, and who may have valuable skills to offer.
In Guernsey, as noted above, there is an important distinction between language
owners (self-identified traditionalists or native speakers, with a static view of
language) and activists (who tend to be new speakers or re-activated latent speakers,
with a dynamic language ideology). The new heritage role for the national collective
identified by hIfearnin (2010) would appear to be more of a challenge for
traditionalist language owners than for activists, as it involves sharing language
ownership. This might be a (subconscious) reason why traditionalists in Guernsey are
attempting to keep hold of language and language policy (in both corpus and status
planning). It might help to explain why traditionalists seem to feel threatened by the
prospect of language revitalisation measures shown to have been successful elsewhere at
increasing the number of non-native speakers, as adopting such measures would
effectively mean they could no longer claim to be the guardians of the language. They
also seem to feel threatened by the increase in positive attitudes towards indigenous
language among the majority population, which coincidentally provides support for the
government to promote language as both an inclusive badge of identity and a
distinguishing feature for the island on the international stage. At the time of writing
there are, however, indications of new initiatives in Guernsey and the Isle of Man,
incorporating language activists, aspiring new speakers and language supporters.
It is possible to discern a parallel with a hypothesis suggested by Myhill (1999),
despite important differences between the situations used as case studies (in Myhills
paper Catalan, Qubcois French, Welsh and Estonian). Myhill identifies a potential
clash between two ideologies, language and (individual) identity and language and
territory in contexts of demographic swamping, such as was depicted by language
activists in the Isle of Man in the 1970s (Gawne 2002; see Chapter 2). Language policy
in the islands in this book seems to be moving towards a language and territory
approach, linking language with island identity and branding, inviting immigrants and
non-traditional speakers to participate in island language revitalisation but avoiding
engagement with some of the logical consequences of a language and individual
identity ideology, which would promote immigrants right to sustain their own heritage
languages; incipient language shift can be seen in the Portuguese population in Jersey,
for example. As an illustration of the trend to promote only indigenous language
maintenance, the Jersey Language Office website celebrates the 2012 social survey
findings by stating: Its all the more encouraging that 32% of islanders said that they are
able to understand some spoken and written Jrriais when just 48% of people are born
here in Jersey.5
In the Channel Islands, divergent ideologies of language reflect the traditional
diglossic relationship between CI Norman and French, as well as the way their
geographical proximity to France contrasts with their political links to Britain. This
relates to whether Guernesiais and Jrriais should be seen as languages in their own right
(with a certain degree of influence from English) or as Low varieties of French. Crossan
(2007) and Kelleher (1928) give an account of debates in nineteenth-century Guernsey
and Jersey between Anglophiles who portrayed themselves as modernisers, outward-
looking and progressive, in contrast to insular or inward-looking Francophiles, who
were portrayed (by themselves) as upholding traditional values and (by others) as
supporting vested interests (e.g. the office of Jurat or supreme court equivalent being
open only to French speakers). In the early twenty-first century a parallel ideological
debate (Blommaert 1999) is being played out in the area of language through
maintenance versus revitalisation approaches, and in resistance to language change
(influence from English) compared to unacknowledged convergence with French. The
major visible arena for this language ideological debate in Guernsey is spelling (Sebba
2007): traditionalists in Guernsey, and in Jersey the standardising influence of the
Jrriais dictionary (Le Maistre 1967; Liddicoat 2000) advocated by LOffice du Jrriais,
promote French-based spelling, although it does not cater for iconic sounds in Jrriais
and Guernesiais such as // and // and is opaque and confusing for learners (Sallabank
2002; Marquis and Sallabank 2009).
The divergences might also be interpreted as paralleling Stegers (2003: 11415)
distinction between two main types of resistance to globalisation: particularist
protectionists, who pledge to protect their traditional ways of life from foreign
elements and are more concerned with the well-being of their own citizens than with
the construction of a more equitable international order; and universalist protectionists,
concerned with the environment, fair trade, human rights, etc. Activists motivated by
nationalist sentiments and static linguistic traditionalists might be said to reflect a
particularist protectionist tendency, while dynamic, inclusive language promoters,
especially those who make links with other minority language activist movements, lean
towards the universalist category. This illustrates the quandary of a
formerly ethnolinguistic and essentialist language movement faced with trying to become
(or to be seen as) inclusive and politically correct in an increasingly diverse and
globalised society.

7.3.2 Policy about language in small communities

Language is often portrayed as being mainly about communication, following Austins
(1975) speech act theory and Grices (1989) Cooperative Principle and Maxims, which
were taken up enthusiastically by the communicative language teaching movement (e.g.
Widdowson 1978; Krashen 1981). We can communicate in any language; and from a
purely functional viewpoint, the better known that language is, the easier communication
is. As Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 23940) note, feelings of ethnic identity can
survive total language loss. Dorian (1999: 31) comments, Because it is only one of an
almost infinite variety of potential identity markers, [a language] is easily replaced by
others that are just as effective. In this respect the ancestral language is functionally
expendable. Bankston and Henry (1998) note that a strong identification with a minority
language may not always correlate positively with language maintenance, particularly
when it comes to transmitting a low-status variety to children; in social-psychological
terms, status generally wins out over solidarity (Giles 1977; Giles and Johnson 1987;
Hogg and Abrams 1988).
In the contexts discussed in this book, both top-down and bottom-up language
planners treat language as an autonomous tool, possession or symbol, essentialised or
reified in postmodern terms. Although most interviewees, when pressed, acknowledge
the notion that language changes over time, there is little acceptance of implications with
regard to language and identity being fluid or dynamic, especially when it comes to
language change and deconstructing boundaries (in particular under the influence of
contact with English).
Promotion of symbolic ethnicity raises the prestige and linguistic capital of a local
language, but does not necessarily sustain ethnolinguistic vitality or intergenerational
transmission or create contexts in which to use it; and identification with a language, and
strong emotional bonds to it, do not guarantee its maintenance either (Bankston and
Henry 1998). But it is hard to see how a minority language can be maintained in any
form without an identity element in language policy: it is difficult to rationalise on
functional grounds alone. A major justification for minority language revitalisation is
therefore to maintain links with a communitys roots and identity, whether real and
current, or (re)constructed.
Discussion with young people in the course of my research has suggested that rather
than the traditional perceived value of language as part of their islands past heritage (and
thus perhaps not that relevant to their modern lives), younger language supporters
recognise a new kind of potential affective value of local language. The use of local
language as a secret language is long-attested (although denied by some traditional
speakers as impolite). Although over half of the school pupils in my surveys reported
having little interest in Guernesiais, a small but salient proportion independently
expressed interest in learning it as a secret language of our own. As noted in 5.2.1, this
indicates potential for a different type of affective interest in language, and may offer a
way for language planners to sell local language to young people, as teenagers have
little interest in typical traditional-style language promotion events. When asked what
they would like to be able to say in Guernesiais, the first thing the fourteen-year-olds said
was Will you go out with me? (which may also shed light on the apparent success of a
range of jewellery engraved with Guernesiais words and phrases). The next section will
discuss to what extent, for symbolic use in such instances, it matters how correct or
fluent the language usage is.

7.4 What makes a language policy effective?

It is all too easy to assume that things will happen because policy declarations have been
made, but of course they do not happen without careful planning, resourcing and
implementation. It is also surprisingly rare for language policy to be evaluated, and there
does not seem to be a particular model that is commonly used for evaluation. This leads
to a lack of knowledge about whether measures are actually effective. There is therefore
a lack of effective implementation, as Romaine (2002b) points out. As suggested in
Chapter 6, there may be weak linkages between official policy and implementation,
especially if, as in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, practical aspects of language
planning are delegated to quasi-non-governmental organisations, or if implementation
depends on departments or individuals who are not fully committed to the language
policy. To a certain extent it could be said that planning measures are implemented at
random, without apparent reference to an overall strategy: a continuation of the tradition
of bottom-up, unplanned language planning (Baldauf 19931994).
The planning stage of language planning (in its usual sense of organisation,
preparation, scheduling, marshalling resources, etc.) is frequently omitted by grass-roots
enthusiasts. As noted in Chapter 6, it can be argued that enthusiasm is necessary to build
and maintain momentum in language movements, but to go beyond awareness-raising
among the general public, some awareness is necessary among activists, and language
planners themselves, with regard to their long-term and short-term, overt and covert
aims.
However, in general it is mainly large-scale projects that include planning and
evaluation. When governments get involved they may produce copious reports, as in
Wales or New Zealand, but these tend to evaluate funded measures according to their
own criteria, for example education reports measure educational achievement rather than
whether children continue using a language long term or go on to use it with their own
children.
One reason why revitalisation movements may be reluctant to evaluate their activities,
especially in terms of monetary input, may be because they are or were originally
primarily voluntary efforts and there is reluctance to put a price on that effort. But there
is also, I think, a certain fear of taking stock of achievements because in many cases the
actual number of fluent speakers such movements produce is tiny compared to the effort
put in. For many participants, however, that is not really the point: it is making an effort
that counts, or even just feeling good about taking part, assuaging some guilt at not
having passed the language to ones own children, feeling that one is doing something to
save the language/culture, or even simply having a good time singing traditional songs
with others of like mind.
It can also be argued that planning needs to take attitudes and ideologies into account.
The ideological issues discussed in the previous section have implications not only for
the direction and control of policy, but also for practical aspects of language planning.
For example, a nostalgic focus on language-as-heritage (of a particular group) may
preclude the development of new terminology, which will affect the ability of a language
to be used in schools. Lack of an agreed spelling system hinders the production of
materials and the promotion of a language in the linguistic landscape.
Re-establishment of intergenerational transmission, a certain proportion of the
population able to speak the language, adoption as an official language, ritual use in
ceremonies have all been cited as criteria for success in different contexts. But the issue
of how to measure any of these remains if indeed measurement itself is desirable.
Might a focus on evaluation and measurement be yet another aspect of a hegemonic, top-
down and modernist approach to language? In the real world, however, funding is
limited, and accountability is necessary for continued funding.
 I have identified two main routes in language policy implementation. Jersey language
planners, in common with many others around the world, have chosen a domain
expansion model, focusing primarily on school-based teaching plus the linguistic
landscape. This necessarily involves standardisation and modernisation, which, as
discussed in Chapter 5, are potentially controversial (although this conflict seems to have
been avoided by LOffice du Jrriais).
Many Manx language supporters originally followed an alternative phatic domain
route of encouraging home use by learning the language themselves, speaking it with
each other, and teaching it to their children. This led back to domain expansion, as they
started a Manx pre-school and lobbied for Manx-medium education provision.
In Ireland, governments attempt to encourage family language transmission of Irish
from above in designated Irish-speaking areas (known as the Gaeltacht), where Irish is
perceived to be most vital. Fishman (1991: 126) reports that parents were awarded a
small annual sum for each of their children certified as Irish-speaking by field officials;
family admissibility to various other governmentally funded programmes was dependent
upon such certification. Irish-speaking villages received funds to construct village halls
to facilitate more frequent and more enjoyable programmes and meetings, to further the
use of Irish in social settings. One of numerous problems that have been identified is that
although Ireland had gained independence from the UK, this programme did not address
language attitudes and reasons for the continued cultural dominance of English in Ireland
(see below).
In Wales, it was realised, after a generation of Welsh-medium and bilingual education,
that school use did not lead to renewal of intergenerational transmission, as young people
stopped speaking Welsh once they left school. Edwards and Newcombe (2005a) discuss
a programme called TWF (growth in Welsh, or Transmission Within the Family in
English) which is promoted via midwives and health visitors and offers childcare classes
through Welsh. It encourages families to bring children up bilingually, building on the
basic knowledge of Welsh gained through education.6 Project workers contribute to
childbirth preparation classes, which are seen as a critical time to persuade parents of the
benefits of bilingualism. Another key aim is social inclusion, as a social divide is seen in
the take-up of bilingual education (Edwards and Newcombe 2005a: 143). This
programme explicitly promotes the cognitive and educational advantages of individual
bilingualism, but like the Irish programme it does not overtly address covert negative
attitudes towards Welsh, which still persist.
It is also possible to acknowledge vernacular language practices in education without
standardisation, for example in Luxemburg the still-vital but Low-status vernacular
Luxemburgish (Letzebuergesch) is used in lower education with German as the literary
High language (Baetens Beardsmore 1993); although of course this is not a postmodern
approach, or one which raises the status of Letzebuergesch, in that the hegemonic
diglossic relationship between Luxemburgish and German is maintained. Nevertheless,
Fishman (1991: 122) points out that Letzebuergesch has retained its vitality at the
domestic level despite proximity and competition with such worldwide languages as
French on the one side and German on the other.
In all approaches to language planning for endangered languages, motivation is a key
factor. An Isle of Man politician and language activist advised: youve got to make it
fashionable, youve got to get it away from being seen as a plonker . . . and the way you
do that is you try and set it up and make it sexy. As noted in previous chapters, grass-
roots campaigning in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands paved the way for
government support by increasing public awareness of the decline of local languages,
and by contributing to changing attitudes. In all three islands, these groups and language
activists contributed to a general climate of support for local languages (see Chapter 6).
Much of this involved what might be called prestige and image planning, either overtly
or implicitly (although most grass-roots campaigners are not aware of the concepts).
Awareness-raising is therefore an important step in campaigning for an endangered
language, especially if the support of government agencies is sought. It can also be
argued that this management of language attitudes is a pre-requisite for the acceptance
and success of other measures, as any publicly funded measures would require the
support of the Anglophone majority. However, prestige planning does not necessarily
alter language practices (Sallabank 2005).
Ager (2005) suggests that top-down planners tend to focus on status and corpus
planning in High domains, whereas bottom-up campaigners focus on image and prestige.
However, the distinction is not a simple one. Use or promotion of a language in High
domains can affect attitudes, and therefore (it is hoped) practices. High domains can also
provide forums (fora) in which to use languages, especially education and digital media.
Top-down policies may also focus on home language use, as in Ireland, while bottom-up
(grass-roots-led) campaigns frequently focus on getting a language into schools, as is the
case in these islands. In Ireland there is also a debate between what might be termed a
monolingual versus a bi/multilingual approach: both official policy and many
campaigners support the idea that children should be brought up primarily through Irish;
however, Tadhg hIfearnin (forthcoming) reports that many families covertly wish
their children to learn English as well in order to participate in the predominantly
Anglophone world outside the Gaeltachtai or Irish-speaking regions. Sustainable
language use in the community lies between the extremes of each approach, though it is
more likely to happen if there is grass-roots support, both in terms of overt rhetoric and
covert beliefs, and also in terms of support translating into practices. Figure 7.2 illustrates
some possible permutations of aims and domains.
Figure 7.2 Aims and domains of language planning for minority languages

Measures to add new linguistic forms or social functions (King 2001: 24) to
endangered languages can be roughly divided into two main spheres: firstly, formal
education as the primary site of language reproduction; secondly, a broader approach to
using language in the community. The second approach can include top-down measures
such as increasing the visibility/audibility of a language in the linguistic landscape
through bilingual signage, the media, etc., as well as more informal forums for language
use or practice (and where these overlap such as online blogs, social media, etc.). Small-
scale, grass-roots efforts are often undocumented, unevaluated and unreported in the
academic literature.
Until the appointment of a government Language Officer at the beginning of 2008, all
language planning efforts in Guernsey were bottom-up, by private groups and
individuals, with little knowledge of linguistics, sociolinguistics or language planning
theory. Michel Bert (personal communication, July 2012) queries whether bottom up is
necessarily always the best route for effective language support. Like the associatifs or
members of language associations with whom he works in south-east France, many lay
language supporters reveal restricted or dogmatic thinking, false consciousness,
insularity, and a lack of vision of a big picture or strategic thinking.
This means that there may be a discrepancy between discourses in favour of saving a
language, and the lack of clear outcomes. The Mission Statement displayed at LOffice
du Jrriais states:
 The objective of the Jrriais programme in schools is to ensure the survival of
Jerseys own language for the benefit of future generations by capturing the
imagination of students with the colour, piquancy and vigour of Jrriais.

Arguably, mission statements are, by their nature, nebulous; this might even be
deliberately ironic in its lack of specificity regarding means to achieve the objective. In
2009 this mission statement was accompanied by a wish list of items ranging from
Bilingual signs everywhere to Audio and video archive to Jrriais medium school.
Achievements may seem tangible: in Jersey, for example, these include the number of
children learning Jrriais, the informative and topical websites, the increased presence of
Jrriais in the linguistic landscape, etc. But these consist mainly of inputs on the part of
the Language Office. Uptake of these efforts in terms of language practices does not
appear to have been measured; in particular, there is apparently no increase in the
number of proficient speakers.
If long-term planning is envisaged, language planning might learn from other fields
such as ecology, with which, as noted in Chapter 1, parallels are often drawn. Key related
notions in this respect are sustainability (King et al. 2008) and resilience (Bradley 2010;
Le Nevez 2011).
The term resilience is increasingly frequent in discussions about environmental
concerns. Resilience theory arose through sociological studies of stressed populations,
which have obvious relevance to language endangerment. It was extended into ecological
sciences and agriculture as a way of looking at why some systems collapse when they
encounter shock, while others are maintained. Resilience theory focuses on how systems
and societies cope with change, which can also be a key issue in language revitalisation
(see 5.4). It has been defined as: The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and
reorganize while undergoing change . . . that is, the capacity to change in order to
maintain the same identity (Folke et al. 2010). As in language ecologies, Diversity is
what makes environments resilient, able to adapt to change and successfully tolerate
climate variation, natural disasters, infestations of pests, and other potentially destructive
conditions (Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2003: 12). A particular focus of resilience theory is
an analogy with the adaptive cycles of nature, characterised by four phases: rapid growth,
conservation, release and reorganisation. These can be seen as related to phases of
development of social movements (including revitalisation) identified by Wallace (1956)
and Bruce (1999) for the sociological development of groups. Wallace (1956), who
according to Costa (2010) was the originator of the term revitalization, identified a clash
of values due to social, economic and technological innovation, urbanisation,
colonisation etc. which caused individual and social stress. According to his thinking,
social movements need to promote idealised, but revised, world-views in order to cope
with change.
The issue, as ever, is how to transform theories and aims into practical solutions.
Bradley (2010: 123) proposes bottom-up, collaborative solutions:
 A resilience approach, empowering the community and giving it the respect, control
and resources to document and use its traditional knowledge and make its own
decisions about language, may allow many groups to achieve a new stability in the
face of linguistic and cultural globalization and top-down language policies.

Unfortunately, this assertion could be said to sound as nebulous as a mission

statement. Bradley does not problematise such notions as the community (see Chapter
1) and traditional knowledge, which are themselves open to discussion (Grenoble and
Whitecloud forthcoming), so may fall into the hypertraditionalising trap identified by
Wilkins (2000) and Leonard (2012). The crucial element of adaptation may even be
omitted, ignoring the problems associated with a static view of language as described
above. Language planning which does not adapt to new contexts and users is not
resilient. Bradley (2010) emphasises the importance of the reorganisation phase in a
resilience approach to language revitalisation:

The aim should not be to maintain the current linguistic situation, nor to return to
some earlier situation, but rather for communities to make informed decisions
whether their languages should persist, in what form and to what degree.
(Bradley 2010: 138)

Sustainability has not really been examined in detail with regard to language
revitalisation; it seems to be used more as a kind of bandwagon for awareness-raising
about language endangerment. King et al. (2008) do not discuss the term itself, but if one
considers sustain in its lay meanings of endure, maintain, continue and nourish,
nurture, the long-term viability of language maintenance and revitalisation is central. In
this respect, in the Isle of Man concern has recently been expressed about what may be
an emerging plateau in the level of interest in Manx. Is there a saturation point for the
proportion of a population who will be interested in heritage languages? Does a
movement which is perceived as successful precipitate a reduction in the sense of
urgency to save the language, as has been observed by language activists in Wales and
New Zealand? Or is there simply a process of natural wastage, as there is with a course
of study, with a small, committed core continuing long-term to advanced knowledge,
while others feel unable to progress or have competing priorities? This plateau
phenomenon has yet to be clearly defined and measured, and as a potential further stage
in language revitalisation (see 7.4.3) it requires further research.

7.4.1 Language documentation and language survival

Bradley (2010: 138) goes on to state, As linguists, we can help to document languages
for the future, including for the groups descendants. This is part of the rhetoric of
documentary linguistics: that documentation can play a more active role in language
revitalisation than merely preserving a historical record of the language, for instance by
providing information and multimedia examples for reference and teaching materials
based on authentic usage (e.g. pronunciation, traditional songs, rhymes and stories).
I point out in Sallabank (2012b) that there is not necessarily a direct route between
language documentation and language planning or revitalisation. Linguistic records are
not necessarily collected or analysed with revitalisation in mind, and revitalisation
movements do not necessarily make use of them when they are available. Experience
from Europe shows that there are European languages which are fairly well documented
but which nobody is making the effort to recover. Why is it that Cornish [spoken in
south-west England] is back in this world, but that Norn [from the Orkney and Shetland
Islands, north of Scotland] is not, for example? (Tadhg hIfearnin, personal
communication, 26 October 2012). hIfearnin comments that Norn vocabulary is
quite well documented, but there are no texts as far as I know, and so idiom, syntax,
grammar etc. would be a problem. But did the last speakers think they spoke a
different language or just some kind of north Atlantic Nordic variety like Faroese, and so
when the culture and society has moved on and away from that north Atlantic Nordic
world, where is the place for a revived Nordic variety. . .? Language, identity and the
collateral language issues raise their heads again! This relates to some basic questions
raised by King et al. (2008: 12):

How do we determine which languages count as endangered or even

minority?
Who makes such classifications, and whats at stake?
What are the different meanings and functions of language revitalization in
linguistic, political, and ideological terms?
How do we ensure that language data are widely accessible while also preserving
confidentiality?

The issue of confidentiality has not been given sufficient attention by documentary
linguistics, which in terms of sustainability tends to focus on the long-term viability of
language archives. Copyright and intellectual property have been discussed, but without
satisfactory conclusions: many recordings remain in effect the property of universities.
This leads to King et al.s next question (from the point of view of an academic linguist,
as discussed in Chapter 1): How do we maintain the trust of the speakers whose
generosity we depend on as we seek to further our knowledge of the full scope of human
language variety? There are some signs, unfortunately, of research fatigue among the
dwindling population of Guernesiais speakers. There are really very few fully fluent
speakers now, who are very elderly. Yan Marquis reports that increasingly often
documentation sessions are cancelled due to illness. There are also perceptions among
some that linguists demand a lot of help but give little back to community members; this
may be partly because of the time it takes to transcribe and analyse recordings, and then
to produce reference and learning materials, but also because of the proprietary attitude
towards data and intellectual property taken by some researchers and institutions, which
is not always in the spirit of open access and is at odds with some community members
feelings of ownership of their language and words. Even when data is archived following
current best practice, language archives and multimedia materials tend to be accessible
only via computers, which the elderly speakers whose voices are recorded are unable to
access, so all they see in return for their efforts may be an audio CD or video provided by
the researcher.
In terms of the sustainability of recordings, Broderick (1999: 669) compares the
usefulness for linguistic analysis of various recordings of traditional Manx (see Chapter
2). He points out that many of the earlier recordings are now very scratchy and some
parts are quite difficult or well nigh impossible to make out. Metadata in the form of
phonetic transcriptions and texts provided by the informants themselves are therefore
invaluable in making the linguistic data accessible. In addition, for both technical and
methodological reasons, some of the recordings do not contain connected or natural
speech, but read prose pieces or recited songs (1999: 68) (as in the Channel Island
Eisteddfods), or elicited words or sentences.
As I suggested in Chapter 2, documented traditional forms are not necessarily the most
useful models for revitalised, reconstructed languages to follow. Corpus planners may
use, excise or adapt loanwords and contact features. Neighbouring language varieties
may also be mined to plug gaps: Manx has turned to Irish and Scottish Gaelic especially,
while Cornish looked to its closely related neighbours Welsh and Breton. Clague (2007a,
2007b and personal communication) notes that children in Manx immersion education
are developing their own language norms in the absence of input outside school. They
also have no access to the corpus of recordings and written literature in traditional Manx,
and little contact with the group of highly proficient speakers who learnt their Manx from
the last traditional speakers.
Although it is a tenet of documentary linguists that adequate documentation is a
prerequisite for revitalisation, language activists do not necessarily agree, as was
discussed in Chapter 1. In this respect it is interesting to note that for the most recent
corpus-based (and widely praised) grammar of Manx, Kewley Draskau (2008) used
recordings made in 2004 of highly proficient non-native Manx speakers (including
linguists), rather than older recordings of traditional speakers.7 Ferguson (2012) points
out that there is a common belief that the oldest speakers of Guernesiais (aged 80102 at
the time of writing) speak the best, use the proper words/grammar, etc. However, in
twenty years time, Guernesiais speakers who are currently in their fifties and sixties will
be considered to speak the language correctly or the best, but their usage is likely to
be different from that of the current oldest generation (see the discussion of language
change in 5.4). It is likely that when they were recorded, the last speakers of traditional
Manx had a comparable level of fluency to Channel Islands Norman speakers currently
in their fifties and sixties, whose usage differs in various ways from that of older
speakers (Ferguson 2012; Yan Marquis, personal communication; also from my own
observations). There is a corpus of written material in Manx dating from the eighteenth
century, which reflects the language at an earlier stage of language contact,8 although
since it consists mainly of religious texts, it is probably written in a more formal register
than everyday speech. Second language speakers who have studied this legacy may
therefore actually speak purer Manx than the last traditional speakers: it is considered a
compliment to say that someone speaks Manx like in the eighteenth century, i.e. that
their Manx is reminiscent of that in the Bible. In Jersey, La Section de la Langue de la
Socit Jersiaise9 focuses on preserving written literature in Jrriais, some of which is
referred to in corpus planning.
Mhlhusler (1990, 1996) asserts that the identification of languages and the way they
are named are far from being an act of objective description; standardisation processes
connected with the creation of literacy norms may likewise constitute a violation of the
linguistic ecology of a given area. It can be argued that this criticism is also valid for
documentation, since the processes involve the reification and commodification of
languages (Dobrin et al. 2009). This raises problematic issues in crystallising a
language, which are related to language change in progress (at what stage should you
crystallise a language?) and inter-speaker variation (whose language should you
crystallise?) (Ferguson and Sallabank 2011). When crystallising a description of the
language (or documentary variety) linguists usually require a working orthography, and
both the description and the orthography may differ from speakers perceptions of
desirable usage. Compromises associated with standardisation may be deemed necessary
or acceptable in order to save at least part of a language, even at the risk of being
subjected to criticism from postmodern-influenced academics. If documentation is to
make any contribution to corpus planning, such issues need to be addressed.

7.4.2 Cross-fertilisation: learning from others

The announcement of a new Guernsey government initiative to support Guernesiais (see
6.3.4) highlighted areas where Guernsey could learn from Jerseys experience both
positive and negative. Deputy Duquemin praised the increased visibility of Jrriais on the
government website and on high-frequency items such as banknotes, and the partial
success of adult education in the Jersey language. On the negative side, he pointed out
that despite over a million pounds spent over fifteen years, not one fluent speaker had
emerged from the programme to teach Jrriais in schools. However, no specific
suggestions were made for learning from these experiences; policy initiatives are to be
left to the new Language Commission.
Among some language planners and activists in Jersey and Guernsey, there is an overt
discourse of learning from the experience of the Isle of Man. This is especially true in
Jersey. For example, a Cultural Strategy Review carried out in Jersey in 2010 made
specific comparisons:
 LOffice du Jrriais provides an important function in the Strategy in raising
awareness of the Islands linguistic heritage; however, its funding appears to be
seriously restricted in comparison with other jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man
which places a greater focus on maintaining a minority language . . .
The Offici du Jrriais [Jersey Language Officer] told the Panel that Jersey
undervalued its language and culture. Manx teachers were integrated in the
Education Department rather than outsiders. Their lessons were included in
curriculum time whereas Jrriais lessons are mainly extra-curricular often lacking
appropriate accommodation in schools. The result is that the Isle of Man has over
1000 children a year learning Manx, compared to just 200 learning Jrriais. Recent
censuses have demonstrated that the number of Jrriais speakers was falling
dramatically.
(Education and Home Affairs Panel 2010: 29)

A group of Jersey language planners (members of the island parliament and key
activists) visited the Isle of Man in the late 1990s and adapted the Manx primary
textbook Bun Noa for Jrriais; however, there have not been any recent visits (which was
commented on by some Manx language planners during my visits there). While both
officials and activists in Jersey are under the impression that they are following the Isle
of Mans example, language planning in Jersey has omitted elements or steps which
seem to be key to the relative success of the revitalisation of Manx to date. These
include:

a high degree of government commitment

developing a core of proficient adult speakers
integrated strategic plans with ambitious goals
teacher training
Manx as a timetabled curriculum option in schools, at primary and secondary
levels
Manx-medium education.

The Guernsey Ministers of Education and Culture, and senior civil servants (including
the Language Officer), also visited the Isle of Man in 2009 and were reported to be
impressed by the Manx-medium school, the amount of Manx in the linguistic landscape,
etc., but due to political and economic developments little or no concrete action followed
in Guernsey.
Contacts between the three islands are also maintained at ministerial and senior
executive level through the British-Irish Council, but some of those tasked with
implementing language policy complain that they receive little or no feedback on the
meetings. More structured sharing of information and good practice at coalface level
might be helpful in implementing language planning measures effectively.
 In the Channel Islands, activities such as town twinning links and the Fte Normande
place importance on common cultural and linguistic ties with Norman on the mainland.
The existence of another closely related language, Gallo in Brittany (just south of
Jersey), is less well known although it has an active revitalisation movement and
LOffice du Jrriais blog reported in December 2010 that:

Jersey has an agreement with Ille-et-Vilaine [a French administrative area in eastern

Brittany] which includes a commitment to the promotion of our own languages,
respectively Jrriais and Gallo. LOffice du Jrriais maintains contacts and
exchanges with our opposite numbers at Bertaeyn Galeizz [Gallo language
promotion association], who have sent us information about a documentary about an
intensive Gallo course.10

There is little contact with the Breton language movement despite its geographical
proximity, or with non-governmental groups from linguistic minorities in the UK, even
Cornish which is also relatively close geographically. Perhaps because of their distance
from the UK, the islands are seen as distinct, and traditionalist language support groups
especially have few links with language revitalisation movements outside the Norman
sphere (and those there are, are infrequent). On small islands there is inevitably a degree
of insularity, and some traditionalist language supporters in Guernsey cast doubt on
suggestions that they could learn from other language movements. Reports of measures
such as TWF in Wales are dismissed with comments such as it would never work here
or what do they know about Guernsey?.
There is a risk that presenting campaigners on a small island with examples from
planning for a minority language such as Welsh with a quarter of a million speakers, and
considerably more state funding, might be demotivating rather than inspiring. It can be
argued that the situation of a language spoken by a very small number of people, with
very little in the way of institutional support, is quite different from that of a larger
minority language with substantial official support such as Welsh or Mori (Bndicte
Pivot, University of Lyon, personal communication, January 2012). Links with
endangered language communities with similar experiences are thus even more valuable.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, because of perceived Celtic ethnic links, language
planners and campaigners in the Isle of Man have modelled their strategies on Ireland
and Scotland, even though they are larger and have more resources. Consequently these
strategies have always been ambitious. It might be argued that because of this,
achievements have been commensurately higher, e.g. the Manx-medium school.
However, it should be remembered that such achievements have taken twenty to thirty
years: as well as being ambitious, planning for language revitalisation needs to be long-
sighted.
7.4.3 What does saving a language mean?
At this point I need to confront my own ideologies. A linguicentric view of language
revitalisation (Spolsky forthcoming; see Chapter 1) may be discerned in comments
throughout this book, especially regarding desirable levels of language use and
proficiency, as well as the desirability of saving a language compared with other aims
such as personal fulfilment (which is arguably a component of any altruistic or voluntary
activity). As discussed earlier in this chapter, language activists and politicians may not
see language itself as their prime motivator in language policy, and laypeople may not
even reify language as an entity rather than as a social practice (although language
activists may do). Language campaigners may relate the status of a language to that of
the language community (which may well be perceived in an essentialised way as
cohesive and monolithic).
Around the world, many language revitalisation movements are still at early stages in
their development (especially if revitalisation is seen as a project that lasts several
generations). Bruce (1999) suggests that groups such as religious sects tend to develop in
predictable ways, akin to the developmental stages found in language acquisition
(Lightbown and Spada 2006). There are likewise some common strands which can be
identified in the development of revitalisation movements, for example the tendency to
focus on introducing the minority language in schools, despite research evidence that this
may not be the most effective strategy, rather than promoting speaking the language in
the home. Communities and activists may find it easier to campaign to change the school
curriculum than to change their own and their neighbours linguistic practices.
Yet a common tenet of language revitalisation movements is that they aim to restore
vitality to a language in a literal sense, i.e. to reintroduce it to children in the setting of
the family. This is due largely to the influence of Joshua Fishman, a key figure in the
literature (1991, 2001). Romaine (2006) observes that, as noted above, most
revitalisation movements to date do not follow Fishmans advice of focusing on the
family first, but go straight for domain expansion, formal education, etc. Fishman too
recognised that:

It is easier to concentrate on the upper stages [of his scale of language vitality, i.e.
education]. However, these stages are characterized by two overriding minuses . . .
(a) being removed, as they are, from the actual nexus of [mother-tongue]
transmission, and (b) they do lead directly to increased dependence upon,
confrontation with or rivalry with the dominant language-in-culture . . . Stressing
the wrong priorities is a very costly example of lacking a proper social theory or
model of what RLS [reversing language shift] entails.
(1991: 112-13)

Getting a minority language accepted into the school curriculum is admittedly an

important part of status planning and of countering ideologies of deficit, as well as a
symbolic reversal of earlier policies which were so effective in suppressing local
languages. As mentioned above, in Wales and Scotland it has led to revitalisation
progressing to a further developmental stage, with programmes to develop parents
proficiency in language suitable for child-rearing (Edwards and Newcombe 2005b). It
may be that revitalisation campaigns have to go through the stage of campaigning to get
the language into the schools in order to gain acceptance and maturity. The problem is
that it is often the be all and end all of actions in support of endangered languages.
As noted in Chapter 4, if revitalisation focuses on High domains such as school, phatic
and domestic language may be omitted. The traditional language domains are almost
reversed, so that children may learn only academic registers rather than the type of
language some potential learners in Guernsey have implied they might like for emotional
self-expression (will you go out with me?). If the reinstatement of intergenerational
transmission of a highly endangered language is an aim (albeit one which is scarcely
mentioned in the Channel Islands), this raises the question of how potential parents might
learn the requisite intimate type of language. It is also a potential problem for
documenters: older generations often do not remember childhood games, and as a
function of the cessation of intergenerational transmission, very few of those now alive
have any experience of bringing up their own children through Jrriais or Guernesiais.
Eliciting language for intimate relationships is even more problematic: many consultants
and respondents are of a generation which did not discuss such things in public or even
with other members of their family. Participant observation is also not always the
answer.
Trosset (1986) suggests that a successful learner becomes a symbol of the fact that
Welsh can be learnt: as mentioned in Chapter 5, there is a common perception that Manx,
Jrriais and Guernesiais are too hard to learn, especially for adults. The language
teaching programme in the Isle of Man is producing proficient speakers, albeit in small
numbers, whereas the schools programme in Jersey, and the voluntary school sessions in
Guernsey, do not yet seem to have done so. The 2011 five-year plan for Manx language
development compiled by Adrian Cain states that we must work towards ensuring that
those who start learning the language end up speaking it (personal communication,
December 2012). Given limited resources, Yan Marquis has suggested that in Guernsey,
teaching efforts might be more effectively focused on a small group of highly committed
individuals (personal communication, 20 April 2010), as competent adult speakers are an
essential prerequisite for other measures.
In his seminal 1991 book Reversing Language Shift, Fishman writes:

The sociolinguistic landscape is littered with the relatively lifeless remains of

societally marginalized and exhausted RLS movements that have engaged in
struggles on the wrong front . . ., without real awareness of what they were doing or
the problems that faced them.
 (1991: 113)

According to Fishman, the right front would be focusing on the family as the most
important locus of language transmission. But is reinstating an endangered, or even
dead, language as a primary medium of socialisation a realistic aim? Romaine (2006:
443) suggests that we need to question the assumptions and theoretical perspectives
underlying terms such as Reversing Language Shift and language revitalization and
to reconceptualize what it means for a language to be maintained and survive without
inter-generational mother tongue transmission. Romaine (2006: 443) queries whether in
the future linguistic diversity will be sustained by quite different patterns of reproduction
than it has been in the past. She also points out that focusing on formal education is
a resource-heavy approach which requires investment in each new generation (ibid.),
especially compared to the lesser long-term cost to the state of stable family language
transmission. Romaine suggests that instead of continuing to maintain that the family is
key, according to Fishmans model, current practices in language planning should be
recognised and incorporated into ideological clarification.

7.4.4 Language revitalisation: an all or nothing venture?

It could be argued that the examples of language in the print environment given in
Chapter 6 are largely symbolic, since all islanders in Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of
Man are now bilingual and literate in English. As Ellis and mac a Ghobhainn (1971:
144) observed:

A language cannot be saved by singing a few songs or having a word printed on a

postage stamp. It cannot even be saved by getting official status for it, or by
getting it taught in schools. It is saved by its use . . .

Including local languages in the public space makes a statement about language
validity. It is especially significant that in all three islands it is now seen as a selling
point, given the historical low status of the islands vernaculars. In such contexts fluency,
and even accuracy, in the language may come to be seen as unnecessary. Examples from
Jersey were discussed in Chapter 5, where the wrong gender article on a restaurant name
was thought to look better. Another example is a range of engraved jewellery marketed
by a Guernsey firm, where rings, lockets, etc. are engraved with what are intended to be
romantic words and phrases in Guernesiais. Some of the Guernesiais does not reflect
speakers usage: e.g. Toujours et alafin, intended to mean always and forever but
toujours is French (always is terrou or terjou in Guernesiais), and alafin has the
meaning at last or in the end. What is more, the advertisements mis-spell toujours in
two different ways, so that it appears even more impenetrably as touyours and tongours.
These seem to be examples of the idea of Guernesiais discussed in Chapter 5, perhaps
as an expression of ethnolinguistic identity rather than as a means of communication. As
such they do not need to be accurate, just to look a bit Guernesiais.11
In response to the suggestion that the linguistic landscape might raise awareness of
local language but does not in itself increase the amount spoken, Adrian Cain, Manx
Language Development Officer, commented: Language awareness raising isnt an end
in itself and if it doesnt encourage people to learn and speak then it hasnt worked
(personal communication, 18 December 2012). Language in the print landscape thus
needs to be seen as part of an overall strategy, rather than as an end in itself or as a
replacement for language acquisition measures.
It could be argued that measures which raise awareness of a language are a necessary
precursor to increasing use among the population. However, Sarah Croome, a doctoral
candidate at SOAS, University of London (personal communication, September 2012)
calls such efforts, as well as campaigns for legal status (such as ratification of the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages), window-dressing, and not only
questions their efficacy in promoting language use but suggests that focusing on such
issues may even hinder the development of effective policies for language use.
Thieberger (2002: 325) argues that token maintenance may be adequate if the aim of
language revitalisation is promoting a distinctive image and identity: language revival
need not be an all or nothing venture. A focus on ritual greetings and symbolic
phrases is a common feature of language revitalisation movements in Australia, where
some indigenous languages are being pieced together from fragmentary records after not
being used for up to 200 years (Rob Amery, personal communication, January 2011), and
in some North American programmes cited by Thieberger.
It is a theme of this book that beliefs, perceptions and ideologies may contribute to a
mismatch between desired results and activities undertaken. Expectations and
assumptions may stand in the way of achievable goals, for example written materials are
necessary to teach a language, or formal lessons will lead to resumption of
intergenerational transmission (which are both commonly heard tropes in all three
islands). Another comment frequently heard as a reason for the decline of
Guernesiais/Jrriais is that they were never a written language. As well as being
inaccurate (see 4.6), such ideologically based statements assume that writing is both a
badge of languagehood and is necessary to save a language.
Although some islanders are reluctant to compare themselves with indigenous peoples
on other continents, the comments of Dr Richard Littlebear, President of Chief Dull
Knife College in Montana, USA, and a prominent Cheyenne language activist, are
pertinent in this respect:

Our Native American languages have been oral since time immemorial. Some of
them have been written only in the last three centuries. We must remember this oral
tradition when we teach our languages. We sometimes negate this oral tradition by
blindly following the only model for language teaching we know: the way we were
 taught the English language with its heavy emphasis on grammar. Teaching our
languages as if they had no oral tradition is one factor which contributes to the
failures of our Native American language teaching programs so that we now have
what amounts to a tradition of failure.
(Littlebear 2007: xi)

7.5 Conclusions
After nearly thirty years of government-supported active language revitalisation, it is still
too early to see whether Manx will ever be safe (cf. UNESCO 2003c); indeed, as
mentioned above, there is some concern that Manx revitalisation may have reached a
plateau.
Some language activists in the Isle of Man see the Bunscoill as the raison dtre of the
language revitalisation movement. Activists place great store on the cohort of children
who have completed Manx-medium primary education and are entering secondary
school, but at the time of writing no child has completed primary and secondary Manx-
medium education, so predictions of outcomes are premature. It cannot be assumed that
children who did not choose to be part of a language experiment will grow up to be
tomorrows activists and teachers, as has been found in Wales (Edwards and Newcombe
2005). As pointed out by Marie Clague (personal communication, 11 November 2008), it
cannot be assumed that because fifty children have gone through Manx-medium
education, there will be fifty fluent speakers.
As noted by Anderson (2011), language revitalisation can mean anything that
language supporters wish it to. The important thing is to approach it with eyes open and
ideology clarified. To date there has been no open discussion in Guernsey and Jersey
regarding the short- and long-term aims of language revitalisation. In Guernsey,
consensus is seen by some as essential for moving forward, and as with standardisation,
debating substantive issues may be seen as potentially divisive. There is therefore a
concern that fluency in Guernesiais and Jrriais may disappear before adequate
documentation has been carried out; and that the languages may slip into a minimalised,
symbolic role without ideological clarification having taken place, and without other
options having been explored.
Not to end on a down note, however, it must be remembered that public opinion in all
three islands now seems to support the maintenance of at least a symbolic part of the
island languages, if not more. This research aims to contribute towards ideological
clarification and to maximise the effectiveness of language policies and practices.
The next two to three decades will be a challenging period for Jrriais and Guernesiais
(and not forgetting Serquiais). Practically all traditional native speakers will pass away
and the Channel Islands will enter a phase that the Isle of Man went through in the 1970s.
Learning from this experience, with foresight, documentation and a core of committed
language enthusiasts, the islands languages might be retained and, eventually, re-
established as a core value: not only as symbols but as an accepted part of islanders
linguistic repertoires.
 Notes

Notes on Preface

1 I would like to thank Henry Johnson (personal communication, 12 April 2011) for this
insight.

Notes on Chapter 1

1 Sixteenth edition: www.ethnologue.com, accessed 24 August, 2012.

2 The discussion on Wikipedia demonstrates the emotive nature of this topic

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialect, accessed 12 September 2012). Incidentally,
one of the contributors cites my paper Sallabank (2002).

3 Although the ECRML comes under the Council of Europe rather than the EU. See
www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/, accessed 30 Nov 2012.

4 See www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/catalan-language-in-danger,
accessed 30 November 2012.

5 See www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-language-is-not-in-danger-
scholar-1-2725967. The debate following the publication of UNESCOs Atlas of World
Languages in Danger, which labelled Manx and Cornish extinct, led to its revision.
One of my students has also pointed out that the Learnmanx website
(www.learnmanx.com/index.html, accessed 26 May 2010), published by the
government-funded Manx Heritage Foundation, does not mention the endangered status
of Manx; the focus is on learning and using Manx as a living language. I am indebted to
Rachel Watson for this insight.
6 Ynsee Gaelg blog, 21 January 2013,
www.learnmanx.com/cms/news_story_248553.html, accessed 16 April 2013.

7 Like earlier theories of cultural deprivation, semilingualism is an example of a

deficit hypothesis. It has functioned as a way of blaming students for failing to progress
in school rather than analyzing how schools are failing the students. Not surprisingly, the
English language learners who are mislabeled tend to be those with the lowest
socioeconomic status and the greatest educational needs (Crawford and Krashen 2007:
345).

8 For example,
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/are_dying_languages_worth_savi.html,
accessed 22 August 2012.

9 The largest of these are the Hans Rausing Endangered Language Project,
www.hrelp.org/languages; the Volkswagen Foundation-sponsored DoBeS
(Dokumentation Bedrohter Sprachen), www.mpi.nl/DOBES; and the US National
Endowment for the Humanities/National Science Foundation Documenting Endangered
Languages program www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/del.html. Smaller programmes
include the Chirac Foundation funded Sorosoro http://blog.sorosoro.org/en/, launched on
9 June 2008, and the World Oral Literature Project, www.oralliterature.org/ (all accessed
15 October 2012).

10 www.endangeredlanguages.com/, accessed 16 October 2012.

11 The potential ethical issues with regard to intellectual property and re-use/wider
publication of data are manifold but outside the scope of this book. For further discussion
see Dwyer 2006 and Nathan 2011.

12 E.g. the Linguists for Nicaragua organisation of the 1980s (Colette Grinevald,
personal communication, November 2010) and the invitation on the website of the
Linguistic Society of Americas Committee on Endangered Languages and their
Preservation to Click here to urge President Obama to support Native American
languages! and Sign up here to be informed of opportunities for political action in
support of endangered languages (http://lsacelp.org/, accessed 14 September 2012).

13 http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~survey/activities/breath-of-life.php; see also

http://nal.snomnh.ou.edu/okbol, both accessed 13 September 2012.
14 www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/biodiversity-and-
linguistic-diversity/, accessed 14 September 2012.

15 www.terralingua.org, accessed 14 September 2012.

16 www.ogmios.org/manifesto/index.htm, accessed 14 September 2012.

17 www.lsadc.org/info/ling-faqs-endanger.cfm, accessed 14 September 2012.

18 Although the International Journal of the Sociology of Language has a regular

section on Small languages and small language communities, it is by no means always
about language policy.

Notes on Chapter 2

1 In Jersey and Guernsey, the Queen is known as the Duke of Normandy and in the Isle
of Man, she is the Lord of Mann
(www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/, accessed 23 October
2012), although Henry III surrendered the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259.

2 Each island has a special relationship with the EU as a result of the UKs accession to
the European Economic Community (later the European Union) in 1972. As noted by the
States of Jersey, In simple terms, the Island is treated as part of the European
Community for the purposes of free trade in goods, but otherwise is not a part of the EU
(States of Jersey 2012).

3 www.maisondenormandie.com/specific/formats/index.jsp, accessed 15 July 2011.

4 www.tynwald.org.im/, accessed 24 October 2012.

5 www.manxheritage.org/language/english/new_words.html, accessed 24 April 2013.

6 www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2011-PP-0136.pdf, accessed 24 April 2013.

7
www.statesassembly.gov.je/about/MembersMeetingsProceedings/Pages/AboutMembers.aspx
accessed 24 April 2013.

8
www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2009/10/22/constituion_debate_feature.shtml,
accessed 24 April 2013.

9
www.statesassembly.gov.je/about/MembersMeetingsProceedings/Pages/StatesProceedings.aspx
accessed 24 April 2013.

10 www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-18548983, accessed 24 Aril 2013.

11 Until electoral reforms in 1948, which separated the judiciary and legislatures, jurats
sat in the States assemblies.

12 Some informants have been given numbers to protect anonymity.

13
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Development%
accessed 17 December 2012.

14 www.liv.ac.uk/manxstudies/new_history/, accessed 23 April 2013.

15 Wardhaugh (1998), third edition, claims that it was banned by the occupying
authorities for this reason, but this is not confirmed by islanders I have interviewed who
were resident during the occupation, and in personal correspondence (September 2001).
Wardhaugh was unable to identify his source for this claim.

16 For understandable reasons, the island governments dislike the term tax haven and
emphasise the robustness of their regulatory procedures.

17 www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/je.html, accessed 11
February 2011.
18 I use this metaphor deliberately: the spidercrab is a local delicacy which has become
an identity symbol, e.g. www.spidercrab.net, the Internet Directory for the Channel
Islands (accessed 16 September 2006).

19 www.gov.im/cso/flourish/, accessed 21 December 2012.

20
www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2009/09/23/norman_french_in_guernsey_feature.shtml
accessed 25 October 2012.

21 These languages (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Manx) are also called q-Celtic because of
their use of the /k/ sound where the p-Celtic or Brythonic branch (Welsh, Breton,
Cornish, etc.) uses /p/. It is thought that the q-Celtic settlers arrived earlier than the
second wave of Celtic settlers and that the /k/ sound reflects a retention of earlier Indo-
European or proto-Celtic /kw/. Indeed, some words in Manx use /kw/ where Welsh uses
/p/, e.g. in the word for five: pump /pmp/ in Welsh, queig/kweg/ in Manx.

22 www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5443/h_g/channel.htm, accessed 20 October

2005.

23 Since 1598 the Edict of Nantes had allowed followers of la religion prtendue
reforme (the so-called reformed religion) to meet for public worship.

24 Owing to the high salaries for workers in the finance industry, there is a shortage of
local people willing to take on less-well-paid work such as in the catering, retail and care
sectors. In the 1970s Madeira was suffering from economic depression and had a number
of unemployed, trained catering professionals, so a mutually beneficial agreement was
reached.

25 Probably due to both being Romance languages with a certain amount of

phonological similarity.

26 The 2001 Guernsey census was the first and only one to ask a language question. The
2006 census was cancelled, and from 2009 censuses were replaced by annual population
bulletins which do not include language information.

27 www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=859, accessed 14
December 2012.

28 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.

29 Tony Scott-Warren reports hearing that there was a speaker of Auregnais living in
the UK in the 1990s.

30 The census form is available online at

www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Census01App
accessed 22 November 2012.

31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/8210192.stm,
www.gov.im/lib/news/cso/unescoacceptsman.xml, accessed 22 October 2012.

32 www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNKra0yy9JI&feature=related, accessed 25 October

2012.

33 Open Archival Information Systems Reference Model ISO 14721:2003; see

www.language-archives.org/, accessed 28 November 2012.

34 www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/shops/publications.aspx?
sectionid=10&publicationid=152, accessed 28 November 2012.

35 www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/about/manxlanguage.xml, accessed 31 December 2012.

36 http://learnmanx.com/cms/news_story_242612.html, accessed 28 November 2012.

37 There are rumours that they may be kept in a university in Paris.

38 The archive is available online at

http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/sallabankmarquis2012guernesiais, accessed 28 November
2012.

39 Campaigners in both islands had aimed to publish in 1966 to mark the 900th
anniversary of the Norman conquest of England.

40 http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/sdllj/aurgnais.html, accessed 20 April 2013.

Notes on Chapter 3

1 In Fishmans framework X = a minority language and culture, while Y = a majority

one.

2 The results will be reported in Chapter 5.

3 Impact is the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and
the economy . . . Maximising impact requires engaging and working with users,
researchers and knowledge transfer professionals, to ensure that strategies, incentives and
mechanisms generate and support impact, innovation and enterprise
(www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/maximising/Pages/home.aspx, accessed 30 November 2012).

4 However, raising such issues with local language planners remains fraught with
difficulties.

Notes on Chapter 4

1 www.gov.je/Jersey/Pages/Language.aspx, accessed 31 December 2012.

2 www.jersey.com/English/eatingout/genuinejersey/Pages/BlackButter.aspx, accessed
23 November 2012.

3 Wires are used to make a cacophonous sound with copper bowls: Faire braire les
polles [to make the bachins bray] an ancient Midsummer ritual carried out in the
Northern parishes of Jersey, to frighten away evil spirits and promote fertility. Conch
shells and cow horns were blown as well. www.myspace.com/video/giles/bachin-
ringing-1/32326320, accessed 23 November 2012 (which includes a video).
4 www.manxheritage.org/language/english/the_cooish.html, accessed 24 November
2012.

5 www.liet.nl/, accessed 24 November 2012.

6 www.nationalia.info/en/news/288, accessed 24 November 2012.

7 These festivals are named after the Welsh Eisteddfod and include domestic crafts such
as cake-making and sports such as artistic roller-skating, as well as music and language
arts.

8 Rouaisons = Rogation, part of the Christian calendar

(www.newadvent.org/cathen/13110b.htm, accessed 5 December 2012), although the
dates no longer coincide.

9 /www.jerseyeisteddfod.org.je/, accessed 22 March 2011;

www.guernseyeisteddfod.co.uk/guernsey_eisteddfod.htm, accessed 22 March 2011.

10 In Guernesiais and Jrriais, the past historic tense is used for actions in the past
before today; the present perfect is used for actions done on the day of speaking. Many
learners, and latent speakers as here, do not grasp the distinction; I am grateful to Yan
Marquis for pointing it out to me.

11 http://2012.sarkfolkfestival.com/page/learn-guernesiais, accessed 22 November

2012.

12 www.kitashton.com/node/170; see also www.badlabecques.net/,

www.facebook.com/Badlabecques, all accessed 24 November 2012.

13 For example www.learnmanx.com/cms/audio_coll_index_3291.html;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7S2qm4LGk, www.youtube.com/watch?
v=uhpC2hceTq8, www.youtube.com/playlist?
list=PLRKY83YjJMfp9vFrAPq_rrEy9kPtFB1Pg, all accessed 25 November 2012;
http://wn.com/Faithe_s%C3%A8rvi_du_J%C3%A8rriais__d%27la_publyicit%C3%A9,
accessed 5 March 2011.
14 http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/jerriais.html, accessed 24 November
2012.

15 www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-17740154, accessed 25 November 2012.

16 www.jerriais.org.je/index.html and blog http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/, both

accessed 25 November 2012.

17 https://twitter.com/Badlabecques, accessed 24 November 2012.

18 https://twitter.com/YanMarquis, accessed 24 November 2012. The use of minority

languages on Twitter is monitored and encouraged by Indigenous Tweets
(http://indigenoustweets.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/facebook-in-your-language.html,
accessed 25 November 2012), through which those who speak minority languages can
find accounts to follow and potential conversation partners
(http://stories.twitter.com/en/lostlang.html, accessed 7 December 2012). At the time of
writing Jrriais and Manx (Gaelg) are listed but Guernesiais is not.

19 See www.learnmanx.com/, accessed 28 November 2012.

20 The granite quarries which drew immigrant labourers in the nineteenth century,
especially to Vale and St Sampsons parishes in northern Guernsey, are now used as
rubbish tips. The North is seen by others as more influenced by Anglicisation.

21 This is taken from the online version reprinted at

http://membres.lycos.fr/bulot/cauchois/marcel.htm (accessed 30 August 2010) and thus
has no page number.

22 A few under-twenties were reported in the 2001 Guernsey census, but activists are
unaware of such families, so the reporting is regarded as an anomaly.

23 As distinguished from normal lexical and structural borrowing from English such
as refrigerator.

24 This speaker has replaced Guernesiais daov or atou with Standard French avec, an
example of convergence due to attrition.
25 For a relevant typology of speaker proficiency, see Grinevald and Bert (2011).

26 I have copied the original grammar, spelling and translation faithfully. Written
language practices will be discussed in 4.6.

27 Martin was a prolific but unpublished translator who as well as the Bible left a large
number of notebooks containing translations of a hundred plays from the work of
Shakespeare, Longfellow, Pierre and Thomas Corneille, Molire and Voltaire.

28 Ozanne was more widely known for her bird hospital, which was featured on British
television.

29 Traditionalists might say that the second spelling reflects the grammar more
accurately, but unlike in French, the first-person subject pronoun in Guernesiais // does
not have a vowel sound but is elided (or omitted). Jones (2008) points out that the
negative particle ne can be reversed (metathesis) to form en, as in this example.

Notes on Chapter 5

1 See also www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jqehF7fhDs&feature=relmfu, accessed 25

October 2012.

2 The same proficiency questions were included as in the census to facilitate

comparison.

3 More detailed results are discussed in Sallabank (2013).

4 https://twitter.com/darrenduquemin/statuses/300320920143294464, accessed 18 April

2013.

5 They are also the most likely to know it already.

6 In several cases this literally involved moving away from the island then moving back;
this is also the case for some language activists in the Isle of Man.
7 The major annual cultural festival in Guernsey, which includes a Guernsey-French
section including poetry and story recitations, short plays, songs, etc.

8 Although there are also international Island Games where athletes from small islands
compete on a more equal footing: www.islandgames.net/, accessed 31 December 2012.

9 In sport, athletes from all three islands usually compete for England or Great Britain.

10 The Vale is the northernmost parish of Guernsey. Vall (usually spelt Valais) is the
adjectival form of the name in Guernesiais; hence the sticker is ungrammatical. In
English the same word is used for both adjective and noun for this parish name.

11 www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n_JBC_QhNo&feature=related, accessed 25 October

2012.

12 The last native speakers of traditional Cornish died in the eighteenth or nineteenth
centuries, but there has been a remarkably successful revival: see
www.magakernow.org.uk/ and Ellis (1974).

13 See, for example, comments at

http://exploreguernesiais.blogspot.co.uk/2012_02_01_archive.html, accessed 26
November 2012 and www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/island-language-in-a-sea-of-
change/, accessed 10 December 2012.

14 www.sml.hw.ac.uk/departments/languages-intercultural-studies/new-speakers-
minority-languages.htm, accessed 25 November 2012.

15 It is noticeable that this report is in English; traditionally the Bulletin of

LAssembllae has been written in Guernesiais (with spelling of each writers choosing).

16 At the time of writing, a second-generation neo-native teacher of Manx is

undergoing training.

17 As noted in Chapter 4, several Guernesiais speakers reported that attending church

can provide an opportunity for interacting with other speakers.
18 www.learnmanx.com/cms/media/News/gaelg%20vio%2016%20final.pdf, accessed
14 December 2012.

19 www.youtube.com/user/GaelgTube, accessed 14 December 2012.

20 http://cowag.wordpress.com/, accessed 14 December 2012. Although this photo is

not captioned, it is presumed to feature one of the last speakers of Manx and two
linguists (one of whom appears to be holding a microphone). A later version of the
magazine, published in January 2012 (http://cowag.org/2012/01/, accessed 14 December
2012) features a cliff-top scene including an ancient stone circle, which might be
interpreted as another reference to island heritage. The current version at the time of
writing (http://cowag.org/, accessed 14 December 2012) features a range of place name
signs in Manx (see the next chapter).

21 Nevertheless, linguistic gender can change as languages develop, diverge and

converge. An example is the word for tree in CI Norman: in Guernesiais, arbre is
feminine, as is its genetic parent Latin arbor. However, in Jrriais and French the same
word, arbre, has become masculine.

Notes on Chapter 6

1 See www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00136, accessed 10 December 2009.

2 For example, the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages, www.eblul.org/, the
Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning,
www.mercator-research.eu/ (which hosted the 2008 Foundation for Endangered
Languages conference) and the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity, www.npld.eu
(all accessed 10 December 2009).

3 This assessment is not accepted by all language activists in the islands.

4 A reference to a welcome sign in Jrriais at the ferry port in St Helier. This interview
took place in 2005, before the government appointed a Language Officer.

5 The 2000 programme is available online at www.gaelg.iofm.net/INFO/program.html,

accessed 17 December 2012.

6 The website of the language section of La Socit Jersiaise, a cultural and natural
history society: members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/jerriais.html, accessed 11
December 2012.

7 www.gov.je/Jersey/Pages/Language.aspx, accessed 17 December 2012.

8 I have been unable to locate a copy of this Strategy. A number of documents available
online report on its development and on a review held in 2010, but none of these
mentions the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Development%
http://shimajournal.org/issues/v1n1/j.%20Ridell%20Shima%20v1n1.pdf;
www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewTranscripts/2010/Transcript%20-
%20Cultural%20Strategy%20Review%20-%20Jersey%20Arts%20Centre%20-
%2011%20October%202010.pdf, all accessed 23 December 2012.

9 www.thisisjersey.com/2011/05/17/its-not-the-head-that-keeps-on-funding-say-the-
teaching-of-jerriais-%e2%80%93-its-the-heart/#ixzz1T72oMRII, accessed 25 July 2011.

10 www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Tax-blow-Isle-of-Man.5748652.jp, accessed 22 October

2009.

11 www.manxheritage.org/pdfs/Jannoo%20Shickyr%20Traa%20Ry%202010.pdf,
accessed 19 December 2012.

12 www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3370&p=0, accessed 19 December 2012.

13 www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3405&p=0, accessed 18 April 2013.

14
www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/BP%202009Educati
accessed 19 December 2009.

15 In this respect it is interesting that the States of Jersey web page Environment and
greener living focuses on what members of the public can do to reduce waste and
emissions, rather than stating what the government is doing
(www.gov.je/pages/Accessibility.aspx, accessed 17 December 2012).

16 For a picture see http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/recycling-bins-more-

bingue-for-buck.html, accessed 19 December 2012.

17 www.manxradio.com/blog.aspx?blogid=14696#, accessed 19 December 2012.

18 The donkey is the unofficial animal of Guernsey, symbolising stubbornness. The

newspaper originally titled the section Donkey dialect until the Language Officer (who
contributed the phrases themselves) complained.

19 www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoNqA8Wd6uo, accessed 19 December 2012.

20 www.gov.im/cso/flourish/, accessed 3 January 2013.

21 Available on request from flourish@gov.im.

22 www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/flourish/positiveidentity.pdf, accessed 3 January 2013.

23 www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-13367042, accessed 20 December 2012.

24 Thanks to my anonymous reviewer for this observation.

25 http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/sdllj/spellchecker.html, accessed 20 December

2012; although the spell checker appears to consist simply of a list of headwords from
the 2004 dictionary.

26 Tony Scott-Warren, Jersey Language Officer, contests this interpretation, suggesting

that it might be more the case in Guernsey than in Jersey; but Guernesiais lessons do not
promote a standard variety, although they may converge towards standard French.

27 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.
28 www.npld.eu/, accessed 22 November 2012.

29 www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQi-OWYy05k, accessed 20 December 2012. The

spellings GaelgGailck reflect regional variation (Adrian Cain, p.c.).

30 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/, accessed 20 December 2012.

31 www.jerriais.org.je/new.html, accessed 30 October 2012. Some observers suggest

that initial consonant mutation may eventually disappear from Manx as it is a difficult
feature for second language learners, but others deny this strenuously; initial mutation is
an iconic feature of Celtic languages. (See also the discussion of Holton (2009) in 5.4.1.)

32 www.llas.ac.uk/resources/paper/2715#toc_1, accessed 21 December 2012.

33 See
https://www2.sch.im/groups/decnews/wiki/ae67a/Developments_in_Manx_language_teaching.html
(accessed 20 December 2012) for a report on how Manx school teaching expanded from
1992 to 2011.

34 An additional cause for disapproval was that the childrens book used the learner
orthography (see 6.5) which has been contested by traditionalists.

35 https://twitter.com/darrenduquemin/statuses/300320920143294464, accessed 18
April 2013.

36 www.jerriais.org.je/using.html, accessed 20 December 2012.

Notes on Chapter 7

1 www.gov.je/Jersey/Pages/Language.aspx, accessed 31 December 2012. Interestingly,

this page does not include a Jrriais translation, although it links to LOffice du Jrriais
and other Jrriais websites maintained by LOffice.

2 The phrase as rendered is somewhat ungrammatical: a literal translation is we will be

to change house. In addition to this, which may be due to using the dictionary without
awareness of language structure, many speakers use the verb bougier, to move.

3 http://eureco.ku.dk/arrangementer/afholdte_arrangementer_underside/meps/, accessed
21 December 2012.

4 http://eureco.ku.dk/pdf/Preliminary_project_description.pdf, accessed 2 October 2013.

5 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/commeunitchi-es-medias-press-
release.html, accessed 14 December 2012.

6 http://twfcymru.com, accessed 5 January 2013.

7 The recordings are available online at www.practicalmanx.com (accessed 30

November 2012) and translations are provided in the books Appendix.

8 Sebba (1998; 2000) observes that Manx was probably originally written for preachers
who were bilingual in Manx and English to be able to give religious instruction to
monolingual Manx speakers. At this stage there had been contact with English for at least
200 years, so contact features were probably already present in Manx.

9 www.societe-jersiaise.org/la-langue-jerriaise and http://members.societe-

jersiaise.org/sdllj/, accessed 30 November 2012.

10 http://officedujerriais.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/intensive-gallo.html, accessed 5
January 2013.

11 Yan Marquis reports that the jewellery seems to have sold well and that the company
has commissioned more (and hopefully better) translations. Such items seem to respond
to a desire to express emotions through the local language.

Notes on Reference

1 The pages of this journal are numbered from rear to front, following Japanese
practice.
 References

Abley, M. 2003. Spoken here: travels among threatened languages. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Achard, P. 1982. Preface to Llus Aracil, Lo bilingisme coma mite [Bilingualism as
Myth], 927. Magals: Institut dEstudis Occitans.
Adler, M. 1977. Welsh and the other dying languages of Europe: a sociolinguistic study.
Hamburg: Buske.
Adler-Nissen, R. and U. Gad (eds.) 2012. European integration and postcolonial
sovereignty games: The EU overseas countries and territories. Abingdon: Routledge.
Adrey, J.-B. 2009. Discourse and struggle in minority language policy formation:
Corsican language policy in the EU context of governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ager, D. E. 1996. Language policy in Britain and France: The processes of policy.
Open Linguistics: Continuum.
Ager, D. E. 2001. Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ager, D. E. 2005. Prestige and image planning, Current Issues in Language Planning
6(1): 143.
Ager, S. 2009. A study of language death and revival with a particular focus on Manx
Gaelic, MA dissertation, Bangor University.
www.omniglot.com/pdfs/languagerevival.pdf, accessed 20 April 2013.
Ainger, L. M. 1995. My case unpacked: Memories of evacuation from Guernsey in
World War II. Dunstable: Self-published.
Aitchison, J. 1981. Language change: Progress or decay. London: Fontana.
Alladina, S. 1995. Being bilingual: A guide for parents, teachers, and young people on
mother tongue, heritage language, and bilingual education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Amery, R. 2001. Language planning and language revival, Current Issues in Language
Planning 2: 141221.
Amery, R. 2009. Phoenix or relic? Documentation of languages with revitalization in
mind, Language Documentation and Conservation 3(2): 13848.
Amy, A. 1988. Original songs in the Jersey language. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflection on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, G. 2011. Language hotspots: what (applied) linguistics and education should
do about language endangerment in the twenty-first century, Language and Education
25: 27389.
Anderson, G. and K. D. Harrison 2007. Global language hotspots: Language
maintenance and revitalization. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages.
www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/langhotspots/revitalization.html, accessed 7 January
2013.
Annamalai, E. 2004. Public perceptions of language diversity, paper presented at the
Linguapax Congress Dialogue on Language Diversity, Sustainability and Peace,
Barcelona, May 2004.
Anon. 1845. Economy; or, A Peep at our Neighbours [in the Channel Islands]. London:
G. Ollivier.
Argenter, J. A. and R. McKenna Brown (eds.) 2004. On the margins of nations:
Endangered languages and linguistic rights. Proceedings of the eighth conference of
the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered
Languages.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, P. K. and J. Sallabank (eds.) forthcoming a. Endangered languages: Beliefs and
ideologies. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford University Press.
Austin, P. K. and J. Sallabankforthcoming b. Introduction, in Austin and Sallabank
(eds.) forthcoming a.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (ed.) 1993. European models of bilingual education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bailey, C.-J. N. and K. Maroldt 1977. The French lineage of English, in J. M. Meisel
(ed.), Langues en contact. Tbingen: TBL-Verlag Narr. 2153.
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 1999. Encyclopaedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bakker, P. and M. Mous (eds.) 1994. Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language
intertwining. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and
Language Use (IFOTT).
Baldacchino, G. 2008. Trains of thought: railways as island antitheses, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 2(1): 2940.
Baldauf, R. B., Jr. 19931994. Unplanned language policy and planning, Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 14: 8289.
Baldauf, Richard B., Jr. 2004. Micro language planning, in P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson,
W. Grabe, W. G. Eggington and V. Ramanathan (eds.), Directions in applied
linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan on the occasion of his 75th birthday.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 22739.
Baldwin, D. 2003. Miami language reclamation: From Ground Zero A lecture
presented by the Center for Writing and the Interdisciplinary Minor in Literacy and
Rhetorical Studies. Speaker Series No. 24. University of Minnesota: Center for
Writing.
Bankston, C. L. II and J. Henry 1998. The silence of the gators: Cajun ethnicity and
intergenerational transmission of Louisiana French, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 19(1): 123.
Bankston, C. L. I. and J. Henry 2000. Spectacles of ethnicity: festivals and the
commodification of ethnic culture among Louisiana Cajuns, Sociological Spectrum
20(4): 377407.
Barb, P. 1995a. Guernsey English: my mother tongue, Report and Transactions of La
Socit Guernesaise 23(4) [1994]: 70023.
Barb, P. 1995b. Guernsey English: a syntax exile?, English World Wide 15(1): 136.
Barrett, R. 2008. Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in
Guatemala, Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(8): 273305.
Barton, D. and M. Hamilton 1998. Local literacies: Reading and writing in one
community. London: Routledge.
Basham, C. 1999. On acquiring an ancestral language as an adult, paper presented at
the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Stamford, CT, 8 March 1999.
Basham, C. and A. Fathman 2003. Developing language skills of latent speakers,
paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics annual
conference, Arlington, Virginia, March 24, 2003.
Basham, C. and A. Fathman 2008. The latent speaker: attaining adult fluency in an
endangered language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
11: 57797.
Bastardas-Boada, A. 2005. Linguistic sustainability and language ecology, Language
& Ecology 1(4) [Online journal no page numbers].
www.ecoling.net/bibliography/4563132828, accessed 8 January 2013.
Batibo, H. M. 2005. Language decline and death in Africa: Causes, consequences and
challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bdier, J. (ed.) 1968. La Chanson de Roland. Paris: Piazza.
Bendle, M. 2002. The crisis of identity in high modernity, British Journal of
Sociology 53(1): 118.
Bentahila, A. and E. E. Davies 1993. Language revival: restoration or transformation?,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14(5): 35574.
Benton, R. and N. Benton 2001. RLS in Aotearoa/New Zealand 19891999, in
Fishman (ed.), 42350.
Bialystok, E. (ed.) 1991. Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge
University Press.
Bielenberg, B. 1999. Indigenous language codification: cultural effects, in Reyhner et
al. (eds.), 10312.
Blackwood, R. J. 2008. The state, the activists and the islanders: Language policy in
Corsica. Heidelberg: Springer.
Blommaert, J. (ed.) 1999. Language ideological debates. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Blommaert, J. 2001. The Asmara Declaration as a sociolinguistic problem: reflections
on scholarship and linguistic rights, Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(1): 13142.
Blythe, J. and R. McKenna Brown (eds.) 2003. Maintaining the links: Language,
identity and the land. Proceedings of the seventh conference of the Foundation for
Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Boland, H. 1885. Les institutions de langue franaise Guernesey, Revue
Internationale 8: 6685 and 190212.
Bonnemaison, J. 1990. Lespace rticul [Reticulated space], in B. Antheaume, C.
Blanc-Pamard, J.-L. Chaleard, A. Dubresson, V. Lassailly-Jacob, J. Y. Marchal, et al.
(eds.), Tropiques, lieux et liens: Florilge offert Paul Plissier et Gilles Sautter
[Tropics, places and links: A festschrift for Paul Plissier and Gilles Sautter]. Paris:
ORSTOM. 50010.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourhis, R., H. Giles and D. Rosenthal 1981. Notes on the construction of a subjective
vitality questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 2(2): 14555.
Bowern, C. 2011. Planning a language documentation project, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 45982.
Bowes, A. M. 1996. Evaluating an empowering research strategy: reflections on action-
research with south Asian women, Sociological Research Online 1(1) [Online
journal]. www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/1.html, accessed 15 July 2013.
Boynton, J. forthcoming. The costs of language mobilisation: Wangkatha ideologies
and Native Title, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Bradac, J. J., A. C. Cargile and J. Halett 2001. Language attitudes: retrospect, conspect,
and prospect, in W. P. Robinson and H. Giles (eds.), The new handbook of language
and social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 13755.
Bradley, D. 2010. Language endangerment and resilience linguistics: case studies of
Gong and Lisu, Anthropological Linguistics 52(3): 12340.
Bradley, D. and M. Bradley (eds.) 2002. Language endangerment and language
maintenance: An active approach. London: Routledge.
Brasseur, P. 1997. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand. Paris: ditions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Bright, W. 1997. Editorial note, Language in Society 26: 469.
British-Irish Council. 2004. Work of the British-Irish Council: minority and lesser-used
languages. www.britishirishcouncil.org/work/language.asp (no longer available),
accessed 24 September 2004.
Broderick, G. 1984. A handbook of Late Spoken Manx, Vol. I: Grammar and texts;Vol.
II:Dictionary. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Broderick, G. 1986. A handbook of Late Spoken Manx, Vol. III:Phonology. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Broderick, G. 1991. The decline and death of Manx Gaelic, in P. Sture Ureland and G.
Broderick (eds.), Language contact in the British Isles: Proceedings of the eighth
International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man.
Tbingen: Max Niemeyer. 62126.
Broderick, G. 1996. Language decline and language revival in the Isle of Man, Ned
Maddrell Memorial Lecture, Manx Museum, Douglas, Isle of Man, 28 November 1996.
www.gaelg.iofm.net/ARTICLE/Broderick/maddrell.html, accessed 10 January 2008.
Broderick, G. 1999. Language death in the Isle of Man. Tbingen, Max Niemeyer.
Brooks, S. 1907. The new Ireland. Dublin: Maunsell.
Bruce, S. 1999. Sociology. Oxford University Press.
Brumfit, C. 2006. A European perspective on language as liminality, in Mar-Molinero
and Stevenson (eds.), 2843.
Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Bunting, M. 1995. The model occupation. London: HarperCollins.
Calvet, J.-L. 1998. Language wars and linguistic politics. Oxford University Press.
Calvet, J.-L. 2006. Towards an ecology of world languages. Cambridge: Polity.
Cameron, D. 1992. Researching language: Issues of power and method. London:
Routledge.
Cameron, D. 2007. Language endangerment and verbal hygiene: history, morality and
politics, in Duchne and Heller (eds.), 26885.
Cameron, D., E. Frazer, P. Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton and K. Richardson 1993. The
relations between researcher and researched: ethics, advocacy and empowerment, in
D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B. Stierer (eds.), Researching language and literacy in
social context. Clevedon: The Open University/Multilingual Matters. 1825.
Cantoni, G. (ed.) 1996. Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona
University.
Cargile, A. C. and J. J. Bradac 2001. Attitudes toward language: a review of speaker-
evaluation research and a general process model, in W. B. Gudykunst (ed.),
Communication yearbook 25. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 34782.
Carr, A. 1972. EnglishJersey language vocabulary. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy 2004. Talking, creating: interactional language, creativity,
and context, Applied Linguistics 25(1): 6288.
Castells, M. 2000. The power of identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter 2006. Linguistic landscape and minority languages,
International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1): 6780.
Chaurand, J. (ed.) 1999. Nouvelle histoire de la langue franaise. Paris: Seuil.
Chiorboli, J. (ed.) 1990. Actes du colloque internationale des langues
polynomiques:PULA (Publications Universitaires de Linguistique et dAnthropologie).
Corsica: Centre de Recherches Corses, University of Corsica.
Christison, M. A. and R. Hayes-Harb 2006. The role of applied linguistics in language
revitalization programs, paper presented at the Joint Conference of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) and the Association Canadienne de
Linguistique Applique/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (ACLA/CAAL),
Montreal, 1720 June 2006.
Clague, M. 2007a. The developing Manx of immerision educated children: role of
applied linguistics in language revitalization programs, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Liverpool Centre for Manx Studies.
Clague, M. 2007b. Narratives in Manx: linguistic strategies in immersion acquired
language, Journal of Applied Linguistics 4: 26184.
Clague, M. 2009a. Carvalyn Ghaelgagh: a curious literature, paper presented at the
Liverpool Symposium on Current Research in the Isle of Man, University of Liverpool,
21 September 2009.
Clague, M. 2009b. Manx language revitalization and immersion education, E-Keltoi
Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 2: 16598 [Online journal].
www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol2/2_5/clague_2_5.pdf, accessed 21
December 2012.
Collas, J. P. 1931. A critical examination of the Atlas linguistique de la France as it
concerns the island of Guernsey, BLitt. dissertation, University of Oxford.
Collas, J. P. 1934. Some aspects of the Norman dialect in the Channel Islands, with
special reference to Guernsey, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 12: 21325.
Collge des Pieux 2000. Auteurs normands: Vous avez dit patois? Les Pieux: Foyer
Socio Educatif du Collge Le Castillon.
Coluzzi, P. 2005. Language planning for the smallest language minority in Italy: the
Cimbrians of Veneto and Trentino-Alto Adige, Language Problems & Language
Planning 29(3): 24769.
Conathan, L. 2011. Archiving and language documentation, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 23554.
Cooper, J. B. and J. L. McGaugh 1966. Attitude and related concepts, in M. Jahoda
and M. Warren (eds.), Attitudes. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 2732.
Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge University
Press.
Cope, L. (ed.) 2012. Applied linguists needed: Cross-disciplinary networking in
endangered language contexts. London: Routledge.
Corbet, D. 1871. Les fleurs de la fort. Guernsey: F. Clarke.
Corbet, D. 1884. Le chant du dran rimeux. St Peter Port, Guernsey: Gurin.
Costa, J. 2010. Revitalisation linguistique: discours, myths et ideologies: approche
critique de mouvements de revitalisation en Provence et en Ecosse, PhD thesis,
University of Grenoble. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/AOM/tel-00625691/fr/, accessed
30 November 2012.
Costa, J. 2011. Du local au global: essai de clarification idologique pralable: discours
concurrents et revitalisation linguistique en Provence, in F. Manzano (ed.), Unit et
diversit de la linguistique. Lyon: Publications du Centre dEtudes
Linguistiques/Editions de Luniversit Jean Moulin, Lyon 3. 23355.
Costa, J. 2013. Language endangerment and revitalisation as elements of regimes of
truth: Shifting terminology to shift perspective, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 34 (4): 31731.
Costa, J.forthcoming a. Must we save the language? Childrens discourse on language
and community in Provenal and Scottish language revitalization movements, in
Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Costa, J.forthcoming b. New speakers, new language: on being a legitimate speaker of
a minority language in Provence, International Journal of the Sociology of Language,
231 (2015).
Crawford, J. and S. Krashen 2007. English learners in American classrooms: 101
questions, 101 answers. New York: Scholastic.
Crawhall, N. and N. Ostler 2005. Creating outsiders: Migration and marginalisation.
Proceedings of the ninth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Crossan, R.-M. 2005. The retreat of French from Guernseys public primary schools,
18001939, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 25(5): 85188.
Crossan, R.-M. 2007. Guernsey, 18141914: Migration and modernisation.
Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Crystal, D. 2000. Language death. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. and M. Swain 1983. Analysis-by-rhetoric: reading the text or the readers
own projections? A reply to Edelsky et al., Applied Linguistics 4(1): 2341.
Cummins, J. and M. Swain 1986. Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory,
research, and practice. London: Longman.
Currie, M. and M. A. Hogg 1994. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 97115.
Dalby, A. 2002. Language in danger. London: Penguin.
Dauenhauer, N. M. and R. Dauenhauer 1998. Technical, emotional, and ideological
issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska, in Grenoble and
Whaley (eds.), 5798.
Davey, P. (ed.) forthcoming. A new history of the Isle of Man, Vol. II: Prehistory.
Liverpool: Centre for Manx Studies.
Davies, A. 2003. The native speaker: Myth and reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, C. 1987. Language, identity, and ethnic jokes about stupidity, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 65: 3952.
de Bres, J. 2011. Promoting the Mori language to non-Mori: evaluating the New
Zealand governments approach, Language Policy 10(4): 36176.
De Garis, M. (ed.) 1967. Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais. Guernsey: La Socit
Guernesiaise.
De Garis, M. 1977. Philology section report, Report and Transactions of La Socit
Guernesiaise 20: 1856.
De Garis, M. 1982. Dictiounnaire AngllaisGuernsiais, 3rd edn. Chichester:
Phillimore.
De Garis, M. 1985. Guernesiais: a grammatical survey. Guernsey: La Socit
Guernesiaise.
De Garis, M. 2012. Dictiounnaire Angllais Guernsiais, 4th edn. Chichester:
Phillimore.
Denison, N. 1977. Language death or language suicide?, International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 12: 1322.
Denison, N. Dictionnaithe AngliaisJrriais 2008. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Denison, N. Dictionnaithe JrriaisAngliais 2004 (2nd edn 2008). Jersey: Le Don
Balleine.
Dobrin, L. M. 2005. When our values conflict with theirs: linguistics and community
empowerment in Melanesia, in P. K. Austin (ed.), Language documentation and
description,Vol. III. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 4252.
Dobrin, L. M. 2008. From linguistic elicitation to eliciting the linguist: lessons in
community empowerment from Melanesia, Language 84(2): 30024.
Dobrin, L. M., P. K. Austin and D. Nathan 2009. Dying to be counted: the
commodification of endangered languages in documentary linguistics, in P. K. Austin
(ed.), Language documentation and description, Vol. VI. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies. 3752.
Domaille, D. R. F. 1996. Analyse sociolinguistique du Guernesiais, MA dissertation,
University of Bristol.
Dorian, N. C. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death,
Language 54: 590609.
Dorian, N. C. 1980a. Language shift in community and individual: the phenomenon of
the laggard semi-speaker, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 85
94.
Dorian, N. C. 1981. Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect.
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dorian, N. C. 1987. The value of maintenance efforts which are unlikely to succeed,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 5767.
Dorian, N. C.(ed.) 1989. Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction
and death. Cambridge University Press.
Dorian, N. C. 1993a. A response to Ladefogeds other view of endangered languages,
Language 69: 5759.
Dorian, N. C. 1994a. Choices and values in language shift and its study, International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 110: 11324.
Dorian, N. C. 1994b. Varieties of variation in a very small place: social homogeneity,
prestige norms and linguistic variation, Language 70: 63196.
Dorian, N. C. 1994c. Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language
revival, Language in Society 23: 47994.
Dorian, N. C. 1998. Western language ideologies and small-language prospects, in
Grenoble and Whaley (eds.), 321.
Dorian, N. C. 1999. Linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork, in J. Fishman (ed.),
Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford University Press. 2541.
Dressler, W. U. 1982. Acceleration, retardation, and reversal in language decay?, in
R. L. Cooper (ed.), Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 32136.
Dressler, W. U. and R. Wodak-Leodolter 1977. Language death, International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 12: 5144.
Duchne, A. and M. Heller 2007. Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in
the defence of languages. London: Continuum.
Duffy, J. 2002. Back from the dead: UKs new language, 22 August 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206191.stm, accessed 23 August 2002.
Dunbar, R. 2008. Minority language renewal: Gaelic in Nova Scotia, and lessons from
abroad. Nova Scotia: FIOS (funded by the Nova Scotia Governments Office for
Gaelic Affairs).
Dwyer, A. M. 2006. Ethics and practicalities of cooperative fieldwork, in J. Gippert,
N. P. Himmelmann and U. Mosel (eds.), Essentials of language documentation. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter. 3166.
Eastman, C. M. 1984. Language, ethnic identity and change, in J. Edwards (ed.),
Linguistic minorities, policies and pluralism. London: Academic Press. 277305.
Eckert, P. 1980. Diglossia: separate and unequal, Linguistics 18: 105364.
Edelsky, C., S. Hudelson, B. Flores, F. Barkin, B. Altwerger and K. Jilbert 1983.
Semilingualism and language deficit, Applied Linguistics 4(1): 122.
Education and Home Affairs Panel 2010. Cultural Strategy Review. St Helier: States of
Jersey.
Education Committee 1998. Teaching of Jrriais in Primary Schools. Lodged au Greffe
on 9 June 1998. St Helier: States of Jersey.
Edwards, John R. 1977. Students reactions to Irish regional accents, Language &
Speech 20(3): 2806.
Edwards, John R. 1984. Language, diversity and identity, in J. R. Edwards (ed.),
Linguistic minorities, policy and pluralism. London: Academic Press. 277310.
Edwards, John R. 1999. Redefining our understanding of language attitudes, Journal
of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 10110.
Edwards, John R. 2001. The ecology of language survival, Current Issues in Language
Planning 2(2): 23141.
Edwards, John R. 2010. Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edwards, V. and L. Pritchard Newcombe 2005a. Language transmission in the family
in Wales: an example of innovative language planning, Language Problems &
Language Planning 29(2): 13550.
Edwards, V. and L. Pritchard Newcombe 2005b. When school is not enough: new
initiatives in intergenerational language transmission in Wales, International Journal
of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 8(4): 298312.
Eggington, W. G. 2001. Language revitalization planning within a power/solidarity
framework, Current Issues in Language Planning 2(2): 24250.
Ellis, P. B. 1974. The Cornish language and its literature. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Ellis, P. B. and S. mac a Ghobhainn 1971. The problem of language revival. Inverness:
Club Leabhar.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod 2008. The study of second language acquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press.
Eloy, J.-M. (ed.) 2004. Des langues collatrales: problmes linguistiques,
sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximit linguistique. Actes du Colloque
international runi Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001, Vol. I. Paris: LHarmattan.
Eloy, J.-M. and T. hIfearnin (eds.) 2007. Langue proche Langue collatrale: Near
languages Collateral languages. Actes du Colloque international runi Limerick,
du 16 au 18 juin 2005. Paris: LHarmattan.
Evans, N. 2001. The last speaker is dead: long live the last speaker!, in Paul Newman
and Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge University Press. 25081.
Evans, N. 2010. Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us.
Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Evenou, E. 2000. La langue bretonne en qute de lgitimit. Spzet: Keltia Graphic.
Falla, J. 2000. What are your true colours?, Guernsey Evening Press, 24 June 2000.
Fargher, D. C. 1979. Farghers EnglishManx dictionary, ed. B. Stowell and I. Faulds.
Douglas: Shearwater Press.
Fasold, R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fennell, D. 1981. Can a shrinking minority be saved? Lessons from the Irish
experience, in E. Haugen, J. D. McClure and D. Thompson (eds.), Minority languages
today: A selection from the papers read at the First Conference on Minority Languages
at Glasgow University 83 September 1980. Edinburgh University Press. 329.
Ferguson, C. 2012. Authenticity in an endangered language: the case of Guernsey
French, unpublished PhD thesis, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Ferguson, C, and J, Sallabank. 2011. Ideologies of authenticity in an endangered
language: change and correctness in Guernsey French, paper presented at the British
Association of Applied Linguistics annual conference, University of the West of
England, Bristol, 1 September 2011.
Ferguson, C. F. 1959. Diglossia, Word 15(2): 32540.
Ferrer, R. C. 2004. Transmission, education and integration in projections of language
shift in Valencia, Language Policy 3(2): 10731.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishman, J. A. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when, La Linguistique
2: 6788.
Fishman, J. A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and
without bilingualism, Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 2938.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 1974. Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton.
Fishman, J. A. 1987. Language spread and language policy for endangered languages,
in P. H. Lowenberg (ed.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics 1987. Washington, DC, Georgetown University. 115.
Fishman, J. A. 1988. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical
foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. 1996 (revised 2007). Maintaining languages: what works and what
doesnt, in Cantoni (ed.), 16575. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/SIL/Fishman2.pdf,
accessed 25 November 2012.
Fishman, J. A.(ed.) 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language
shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. 2006. Do not leave your language alone. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Flores Farfn, J. A. and F. F. Ramallo (eds.) 2010. New perspectives on endangered
languages: Bridging gaps between sociolinguistics, documentation and language
revitalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Florey, M. 2004. Countering purism: confronting the emergence of new varieties in a
training programme for community language workers, in P. K. Austin (ed.), Language
documentation and description, Vol. II. London: School of Oriental and African
Studies. 927.
Foddy, W. 1993. Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and
practice in social research. Cambridge University Press.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analyses, Global Environmental Change 16: 25367.
Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockstrm 2010.
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, Ecology
and Society 15(4): 20. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/, accessed 15 July
2013.
Freeland, J. and D. Patrick (eds.) 2004. Language rights and language survival:
Encounters. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Gal, S. 1978. Peasant men cant get wives: language change and sex roles in a bilingual
community, Language in Society 7(1): 116.
Gal, S. 1979. Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual
Austria. New York: Academic Press.
Gal, S. 2006. Migration, minorities and multilingualism in Europe: language ideologies
and the practices of language difference, in Mar-Molinero and Stevenson (eds.), 13
27.
Gardner, R. C. and W. E. Lambert 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., N. Coupland and A. Williams 2003. Investigating language attitudes: Social
meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Gawne, P. 2002. Securing the future of Manx Gaelic, in P. Davey, D. Finlayson and P.
Tomlinson (eds.), Mannin revisited: Twelve essays on Manx culture and environment.
Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies. 17383.
www.arts.ed.ac.uk/celtic/poileasaidh/gawneseminar.html, accessed 15 December 2012.
Gerdts, D. 1998. The linguist in language revitalization programmes, in N. Ostler
(ed.), Endangered languages: What role for the specialist? Bath: Foundation for
Endangered Languages. 1322.
Gawne, P. 2010. Beyond expertise: the role of the linguist in language revitalization
programs, in Grenoble and Furbee (eds.), 17392.
Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. European
Monographs in Social Psychology. London/New York: Academic Press.
Giles, H. and E. B. Ryan (eds.) 1982. Attitudes towards language variation: Social and
applied contexts. London: Edward Arnold.
Giles, H. and P. Johnson 1981. The role of language in inter-group relations, in J. C.
Turner and H. Giles (eds.), Intergroup relations. Oxford: Blackwell. 2033.
Giles, H. and P. Johnson 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological
approach to language maintenance, International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 68: 6699.
Gill, W. W. 1934. Manx dialect words and phrases. London/Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith.
Girard, P. 1980. George Mtivier, Guernseys national poet, Report and Transactions
of La Socit Guernesiaise 20: 61733.
Goebl, H. 1989. Quelques remarques relatives aux concepts Abstand et Ausbau de
Heinz Kloss, in U. Ammon (ed.), Status and function of languages and language
varieties. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 27890.
Gomm, R. 2004. Social research methodology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goodfellow, A. M. (ed.) 2009. Speaking of endangered languages: Issues in
revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Goodfellow, A. M. and P. Alfred 2002. Maintaining indigenous languages in North
America: what can we learn from studies of pidgins and creoles?, in B. Burnaby and J.
Reyhner (eds.), Indigenous languages across the community. Flagstaff: University of
Arizona. 21318.
Gorter, D., H. F. Marten and L. Van Mensel (eds.) 2011. Minority languages in the
linguistic landscape. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Trans. Q.
Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith. New York: International.
Green, J. N. 1993. Representations of romance: conflict, bilingualism and diglossia, in
R. Posner and J. N. Green (eds.), Bilingualism and linguistic conflict in romance, Vol.
V. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 340.
Grenoble, L. A. 2009. Conflicting ideologies and beliefs in the field, paper presented
at ELAP Workshop Endangered languages: beliefs and ideology, School of Oriental
and African Studies, London, 28 February 2009.
Grenoble, L. A. 2011. Language ecology and endangerment, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 2744.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. N. Furbee (eds.) 2010. Language documentation: Practice and
values. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. J. Whaley (eds.) 1998. Endangered languages: Language loss
and community response. Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble, L. A. and L. J. Whaley 2006. Saving languages: An introduction to language
revitalization. Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble, L. A. and S. S. Whitecloud forthcoming. Conflicting goals, ideologies and
beliefs in the field, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grimes, B. F. 2001. Global language viability: causes, symptoms and cures for
endangered languages, Notes on Linguistics 4: 20523.
Grin, F. 1999. Language policy in multilingual Switzerland: Overview and recent
developments. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues.
Grin, F. and F. Vaillancourt 1997. The economics of multilingualism: overview and
analytical framework, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 4365.
Grin, F. and F. Vaillancourt 1999. The cost-effectiveness of minority language policies:
Case studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre
for Minority Issues.
Grinevald, C. 2003. Speakers and documentation of endangered languages, in P. K.
Austin (ed.), Language documentation and description, Vol. I. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies. 5272.
Grinevald, C. and M. Bert 2011. Speakers and communities, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 4565.
Grinevald, C. and B. Pivot 2010. How to teach a mother tongue . . . when it no longer is
a mother tongue?, Sorosoro blog, 18 December 2010. http://blog.sorosoro.org/en/how-
to-teach-a-mother-tongue%E2%80%A6-when-it-no-longer-is-a-mother-tongue,
accessed 5 January 2013.
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guillemin, M. 1985. tude sur la situation du franais et des parlers normands dans les
les Anglo-Normandes, Diplme dtudes approfondies, Universit de Paris III
Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. 1989. Types of linguistic communities, in J. A. Fishman (ed.), Readings
in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton. 46072.
Gumperz, J. J. and J. Cook-Gumperz 1982. Introduction: language and the
communication of social identity, in J. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and social identity.
Cambridge University Press. 122.
Haarmann, H. 1984. Sprachplanung und Prestigeplanung [Language planning and
prestige planning], Europa Ethnica 41: 819.
Haarmann, H. 1990. Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a
methodological framework, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86:
10326.
Hale, K. 1992. Endangered languages, Language 68: 142.
Hammersley, M. 1993. Introducing ethnography, in D. Graddol, J. Maybin and B.
Stierer (eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context. Milton
Keynes/Clevedon: The Open University/Multilingual Matters. 117.
Hansen, E. 2001. Roma minorities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Issues,
institutions and policies pertaining to data collection. Oslo: FAFO.
Harbert, W., S. McConnell-Ginet, A. Miller and J. Whitman (eds.) 2009. Language and
poverty. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Harrison, K. D. 2007. When languages die: The extinction of the worlds languages and
the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Hartley, L. C. and D. R. Preston 1999. The names of US English: valley girl, cowboy,
yankee, normal, nasal and ignorant, in T. Bex and R. J. Watts (eds.), Standard
English: The widening debate. London: Routledge. 20738.
Haugen, E. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Havard, N. 2008. Language revitalisation on Guernsey, MA dissertation, University of
Sheffield.
Heaume, D. O. 1970. Guernsey songs and dances. Guernsey: LAssembllae
dGuernsiais.
Heinrich, P. 2004. Language planning and language ideology in the Ryukyu Islands,
Language Policy 3(2): 15379.
Heinrich, P. 2005. What leaves a mark should no longer stain: progressive erasure and
reversing language shift activities in the Ryukyu Islands, Refereed papers from the
First international Small Island Cultures conference, Kagoshima University Centre for
the Pacific Islands, 710 February 2005: 6172. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC1/j.%20ISIC1P%20Heinrich.pdf, accessed 16 April 2013.
Heller, M. 2004. Analysis and stance regarding language and social justice, in
Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 28386.
Heller, M. 2010. The commodification of language, Annual Review of Anthropology
39: 10114 (DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104951).
Heller, M. 2011. Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and
identity. Oxford University Press.
Heller, M., M. Campbell, P. Dalley and D. Patrick 1999. Linguistic minorities and
modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman.
Henry, J. and C. L. Bankston III 1999. Louisiana Cajun ethnicity: symbolic or
structural?, Sociological Spectrum 19(2): 22348.
Hicks, D. 2001. Opening of the first Manx-medium primary school class. www.breizh-
brittany.com/sections/rbe-international, accessed 9 September 2002.
Hill, J. H. 2002. Expert rhetorics in advocacy for endangered languages: who is
listening and what do they hear?, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2): 11933.
Hill, K. (ed.) 2000. The collected works of Marjorie Ozanne 18971973 in Guernsey-
French with English translations. Guernsey: La Socit Guernesiaise.
Hinton, L. 1997. Survival of endangered languages: the Californian Master-Apprentice
program, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 123: 17791.
Hinton, L. 2002. Commentary: internal and external advocacy, Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 12(2): 1506.
Hinton, L. and J. Ahlers 1999. The issue of authenticity in Californian language
restoration, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30(1): 5667.
Hinton, L. and K. Hale (eds.) 2002. The green book of language revitalization in
practice. San Diego/Oxford: Academic Press.
Hinton, L., M. Vera and N. Steele 2002. How to keep your language alive: A
commonsense approach to one-on-one language learning. Berkeley, CA: Heyday
Books.
Hoare, R. 2000. Linguistic competence and regional identity in Brittany: attitudes and
perceptions of identity, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21(4):
32446.
Hoare, R. and A. Coveney 2000. The linguistic marking of identity among young
people in Brittany, Revue-Parole 14: 93125.
Hoffman, K. E. 2006. Berber language ideologies, maintenance, and contraction:
gendered variation in the indigenous margins of Morocco, Language &
Communication 26: 14467.
Hogg, M. A. and D. Abrams 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A. and D. Abrams 2001. Intergroup relations: Essential readings.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Holton, G. 2009. Creating sustainable language communities through creolization, in
Goodfellow (ed.), 23865.
Hornberger, N. H. (ed.) 2003. Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for
educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H.(ed.) 2008. Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and
practice on four continents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, N. H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning, in
Ricento (ed.), 2441.
Hornberger, N. H. and K. King 1996. Language revitalization in the Andes: can the
schools reverse language shift?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 17: 42741.
Hornsby, M. 2005. No-breton and questions of authenticity, Estudios de
Sociolingstica 6(2): 191218.
Houghton, S. and D. J. Rivers 2013. Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics
in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hudson, A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia, International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 157: 148.
Husband, C. and V. Saifullah-Khan 1982. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: some
creative doubts, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3(3): 195
205.
Hyltenstam, K. and L. Obler 1989. Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of
acquisition, maturity, and loss. Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. 1972 (revised from 1967). Models of the interaction of language and social
life, in J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The
ethnography of communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 3571.
Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among
Western publics. Princeton University Press.
Inglis, H. D. 1835. The Channel Islands. London: Whittaker.
Irvine, J. 1989. When talk isnt cheap: language and political economy, American
Ethnologist 16: 24867.
Irvine, J. T. and S. Gal 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation, in
Kroskrity (ed.),. 3583.
Isle of Man Government 2012. Isle of Man Census 2011: Summary Results. Douglas,
Isle of Man: Government Treasury Economic Affairs Division.
Jaffe, Alexandra 1999a. Ideologies in action: Language politics on Corsica. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaffe, Alexandra 1999b. Locating power: Corsican translators and their critics, in J.
Blommaert (ed.), Language ideological debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 3966.
Jaffe, Alexandra 2000. Comic performance and the articulation of hybrid identity,
Pragmatics 10(1): 13959.
Jaffe, Alexandra 2005. Lducation bilingue corse et la polynomie, Marges
Linguistiques 10: 282300.
Jaffe, Alexandra 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. 22536.
Jehan, R. 1999. Des pomes en Guernsiais. Guernsey: Jehan.
Jenkins, J. 2002. The pronunciation of English as an international language. Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity.Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking identity. London: Sage.
Jennings, G. and Y. Marquis (eds.) 2011. The toad and the donkey: An anthology of
Norman literature from the Channel Islands. London: Francis Boutle Publishers.
Jessner, U. 1995. How beneficial is bilingualism? Cognitive aspects of bilingual
proficiency, Grazer Linguistische Monographien 10: 17382.
Johansson, L. 2002. Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework, in M. C.
Jones and E. Esch (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and
extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 285313.
Johnson, H. 2008a. Localising Jersey through song: Jrriais, heritage and island identity
in a festival context, Shima 2: 7398.
Johnson, H. 2008b. Constructing islandness on Jersey: a study of language and La Fte
Nouormande, Refereed papers from the third International Small Island Cultures
Conference, Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, 29 June
2 July 2007, ed. Iren Novaczek. 5563. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC3/l.%20ISIC3P%20Johnson.pdf, accessed 16 April 2013.
Johnson, H. 2010. Branding Jrri: art, image, and identity in contexts that celebrate
Jerseys Norman heritage, Refereed papers from the sixth International Small Island
Cultures Conference, Guernsey, 2325 June 2010, ed. A. Grydehj. 112. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC6/e.%20ISIC6P%20Johnson.pdf, accessed 3 January 2013.
Johnson, H. 2011. Jrriais, song, and language revitalization, in G. Baldaccino (ed.),
Island songs: A global repertoire. Plymouth: Scarecrow Press. 10318.
Johnson, H. 2013. The Group from the West: song, endangered language and sonic
activism on Guernsey, Journal of Marine and Island Cultures 1(2): 99112.
Johnson, P., H. Giles and R. Bourhis 1983. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: a
response, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4: 25569.
Johnson, R. K., M. Swain, M. H. Long and J. Richards (eds.) 1997. Immersion
education: International perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Johnstone, P. 1994. A short history of Guernsey. Guernsey Press.
Jones, M. C. 1998a. Language obsolescence and revitalization. Oxford University
Press.
Jones, M. C. 1998b. Death of a language, birth of an identity: Brittany and the Bretons,
Language Problems and Language Planning 22: 12942.
Jones, M. C. 2000. The subjunctive in Guernsey Norman French, Journal of French
Language Studies 10(1): 7399.
Jones, M. C. 2001. Jersey Norman French: A linguistic study of an obsolescent dialect.
Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
14368.
Jones, M. C. 2007. The Martin manuscript: an unexplored archive of Guernsey Norman
French, French Studies 61(3): 32951 (DOI: 310.1093/fs/knm1124).
Jones, M. C. 2008. The Guernsey Norman French translations of Thomas Martin: A
linguistic study of an unpublished archive. Louvain: Peeters.
Jones, M. C. 2012. Variation and Change in Sark Norman French, Transactions of the
Philological Society 110(2): 14970 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467968X.2012.01288.x).
Joseph, J. E. 1987. Eloquence and power: The rise of language standards and standard
languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Judge, A. 2007. Linguistic policies and the survival of regional languages in France
and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Judge, A. 2008. Different approaches towards regional languages in France and the
UK, lecture presented on 12 March 2008, University of Edinburgh.
Kaneva, N. 2011. Nation branding: toward an agenda for critical research,
International Journal of Communication [Online journal].
http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/704, accessed 4 June 2011.
Kaplan, R. B. and R. B. Baldauf 1997. Language planning: From practice to theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kaplan, R. B. and R. B. Baldauf 2003. Language and language-in-education planning
in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kelle, U. 2001. Sociological explanations between Micro and Macro and the
integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, Forum: Qualitiative Social
Research 2(1): n.p. [Online journal]. www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/966, accessed 9 January 2013.
Kelleher, J. D. 1928. The triumph of the country: The rural community in nineteenth-
century Jersey. St Ouen, Jersey: John Appleby Publishing in association with la Socit
Jersiaise.
Kelly, P. 2005. Multilingual nation: Manx,
www.bbc.co.uk/print/voices/multilingual/manx.shtml, accessed 17 January 2005.
Kennedy, P. 1975a. French songs from the Channel Islands: Folktrax 012. Gloucester:
Folktrax and Soundpost Publications.
Kennedy, P. 1975b. Guernsey and Sark songs, dances and customs: Folktrax 213.
Gloucester: Folktrax and Soundpost Publications.
Kewley Draskau, M. J. 2008. Practical Manx. Liverpool University Press.
Kewley Draskau, M. J. 2001. The sociolinguistics of terminology, with especial
reference to less widely-used and revitalised languages, paper presented at the
International Conference on Language and Society, Academy of Science, Moscow,
Russia, 2326 October 2001 and at the Centre for Manx Studies, University of
Liverpool, 19 February 2002.
King, J. forthcoming. Revitalising the Mori language?, in Austin and Sallabank
(eds.).
King, K. A. 1999. Inspecting the unexpected: language status and corpus shifts as
aspects of Quichua language revitalization, Language Problems and Language
Planning 23(2): 10932.
King, K. A. 2001. Language revitalization processes and prospects: Quichua in the
Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
King, K., N. Schilling-Estes, L. W. Fogle and J. J. Lou (eds.) 2008. Sustaining linguistic
diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
King, R. 1989. On the social meaning of linguistic variability in language death
situations: Variation in Newfoundland French, in N. Dorian (ed.), Investigating
Obsolescence. Cambridge University Press. 13948.
Kipp, D. 2009. Encouragement, guidance and lessons learned: 21 years in the trenches
of indigenous language revitalization, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 19.
Kloss, H. 1952. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischen Kultursprachen von 18001950.
Munich: Pohl & Co.
Kloss, H. 1967. Abstand languages and Ausbau languages, Anthropological
Linguistics 9: 2971.
Kloss, H. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischen Kultursprachen seit 1800.
Dsseldorf: Schwann.
Kloss, H. 1993. Abstand languages and Ausbau languages, Anthropological
Linguistics 35(1): 15870.
Kloss, H. and A. Verdoodt 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report.
Quebec: C. I. R. B.
Kouritzin, S. G. 1999. Face[t]s of first language loss. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krauss, M. 1992. The worlds languages in crisis, Language 68: 410.
Krauss, M. 1997. Indigenous languages of the north: a report on their present state, in
H. Shoji, H. and J. Janhunen (eds.), Northern minority languages: Problems of
survival. Senri Ethnological Studies, no. 44. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. 1
34.
Kress, G. R. 2009. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.) 2000a. Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities.
Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Kroskrity, P. V. (ed.) 2000b. Regimenting languages, in Kroskrity (ed.) 2000a, 134.
Kroskrity, P. V. and M. Field 2009. Native American language ideologies: Beliefs,
practices, and struggles in Indian country. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Kuter, L. 1989. Breton vs. French: language and the opposition of political, economic,
social, and cultural values, in Dorian (ed.), 7591.
Labov, William 1963. The social motivation of a sound change, Word 19: 273309.
Labov, William 1966. The effect of social mobility on linguistic behavior, Social
Inquiry 36: 186203.
Labov, William 1982. Objectivity and commitment in the linguistic sciences: the case
of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor, Language in Society 11: 165202.
Labov, William 2008. Unendangered dialects, endangered people, in King et al. (eds.),
21938.
Labrador, R. N. 2004. We can laugh at ourselves: Hawaii ethnic humor, local
identity and the myth of multiculturalism, Pragmatics 14(23): 291316.
Lach-Szyrma, W. S. 1888. Manx and Cornish: the dying and the dead, Journal of the
British Archaeological Association 44: 2838.
Ladefoged, P. 1992. Another view of endangered languages, Language 68: 80911.
Lafont, R. 1992. La situation sociolinguistique de la France, in Henri Giordan (ed.),
Les Minorits en Europe: droits linguistiques et droits de lhomme. Paris: Kim. 145
63.
Lafont, R. 1997. Quarante ans de sociolinguistique la priphrie. Paris: LHarmattan.
Landry, R. and R. Allard 1994a. Diglossia, ethnolinguistic vitality and language
behaviour, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 1542.
Landry, R. and R. Allard 1994b. Introduction: special issue on ethnolinguistic vitality,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 513.
Landry, R. and R. Bourhis 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an
empirical study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 2349.
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): 275300.
Le Cheminant, K. 2001. Parlez vous patois?, Globe, 3 October 2001, 6.
Le Huray, C. P. 1956. Philological report, Transactions of La Socit Guernesiaise 16:
32.
Le Huray, C. P. 1969. The Bailiwick of Guernsey. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Le Maistre, F. 1967. Dictionnaire JersiaisFranais. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Le Maistre, F. 1982. The language of Auregny. Jersey: Le Maistre.
Le Page, R. B. and A. Tabouret-Keller 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches
to language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press.
Le Sauteur, Tony 2004. La buonne vielle langue jerriaise au Tchubec!,
http://tonylesauteur.com/arbre8.htm, accessed 17 January 2005.
Lebarbenchon, R. J. 1980. Des filles, une sorcire, dame toumasse et quelques autres.
Azeville: Self-published.
Lebarbenchon, R. J. 1988. La Grve de Lecq: Littratures et cultures populaires de
Normandie, Guernesey et Jersey. Cherbourg: Isote.
Lee, T. S. and D. McLaughlin 2001. Reversing Navajo language shift, revisited, in
Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Bristol: Multilingual
Matters. 2343.
Lemprire, R. 1980. History of the Channel Islands. London: Robert Hale.
Le Nevez, A. 2011. Exploring language resilience, paper presented at Languages of
the Wider World: Understanding Resilience and Shift in Regional and Minority
Languages Conference, Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and
Language Learning, Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden (Netherlands), 68 April 2011.
Lenfestey, T. 1875. Le Chant des fontaines. Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Leonard, W. Y. 2012. Reframing language reclamation programmes for everybodys
empowerment, Gender and Language 6(2): 33967.
Lepelley, R. 1987. Guillaume le duc: extraits du Roman de Rou de Wace, Pote
Normand du XIIe sicle. Caen: Centre de Publications de lUniversit de Caen.
Les Ravigotteurs 1999. Jimmain va la Banque. Guernsey: Les Ravigotteurs.
Lewis, E. G. 1975. Attitudes toward language among bilingual children and adults,
Linguistics 158: 10325.
Lewis, E. S. 1895. Guernsey: Its people and dialect. Baltimore: Modern Language
Association of America.
Lewis, M. P. (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, TX: SIL
International.
Lewis, M. P. and G. Simons 2010. Assessing endangerment: expanding Fishmans
GIDS, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique/Romanian Review of Linguistics 2:10320.
Liddicoat, A. J. 1986. Le patouais, le bouon franais et langliaichinnie: dialect,
French and anglicization in Jersey and Sark, University of Melbourne Working Papers
in Linguistics 12: 2738.
Liddicoat, A. J. 1993. Social identity and language death: the case of Sark Norman
French, paper presented at AILA World Congress, Amsterdam, 913 August 1993.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2000. The ecological impact of a dictionary, Current Issues in
Language Planning 1(3): 42430.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2001. Lexicon of Sark Norman French. Munich: LINCOM.
Liddicoat, A. J.(ed.) 2007. Language planning and policy: Issues in language planning
and literacy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada 2006. How languages are learned. Oxford University
Press.
Lippi-Green, R. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext
in the courts, Language in Society 23: 16398.
Lippi-Green, R. 2011. English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination
in the United States. London: Routledge.
Lissenden, S. 2004. Showcase: The story of the Eisteddfod. Jersey: La Socit Jersiaise.
Littlebear, R. 2007. Preface, in Cantoni (ed.), xixiii.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/jar/SIL.pdf, accessed 28 December 2012.
Locke, M. J. 1998. Songs of Sark. Sark: Martin J. Locke.
Lodge, A. R. 1993. French: From dialect to standard. London: Routledge.
Long, D. 2007. When islands create languages or, Why do language research with
Bonin (Ogasawara) Islanders?, Shima: The International Journal of Research into
Island Cultures 1/1: 1527.
Long, D. and D. R. Preston (eds.) 2002. Handbook of perceptual dialectology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lsch, H. 2000. Die franzsichen Varietten auf den Kanalinseln in Vergangeneit,
Gegenwart und Zukunft. Vienna: Edition Praesens.
Low, G. 1999. What respondents do with questionnaires: accounting for incongruity
and fluidity, Applied Linguistics 20(4): 50333.
Lukcs, G. [1920] 1971. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lpke, F. and A. Storch 2013. Repertoires and choices in African languages. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Mackey, W. F. [1980] 2001. The ecology of language shift, in A. Fill and P.
Mhlhusler (eds.), The ecolinguistics reader. London: Continuum. 6774.
Mahy, T. H. 1922. Les dires et penses du Courtil Poussin. Guernsey.
Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook (eds.) 2006. Disinventing and reconstituting languages.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Malik, K. 2000. Let them die, Prospect (November): 1617.
Manx National Heritage [1948] n.d. Skeealyn Vannin: Stories of Mann. Douglas, Isle of
Man: Manx National Heritage.
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1983. Identit linguistique, exclamatives et subordonnes: un modle
syntaxique spcifique en Corse, tudes Corses 2021: 399424. Repr. in Marcellesi et
al. (eds.), 20934.
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1986. Actualit du processus de naissance de langues en domaine
roman, Cahiers de Linguistique Sociale 9: Sociolinguistique Romane. Rouen:
University of Rouen. 219. Repr. at http://membres.lycos.fr/bulot/cauchois/marcel.htm
(accessed 30 August 2010).
Marcellesi, J.-B. 1987. Laction thmatique programm: individuation
sociolinguistique corse, tudes Corses 28: 520. Repr. in Marcellesi et al. 2003, 252
70.
Marcellesi, J.-B., T. Bulot and P. Blanchet 2003. Sociolinguistique: pistmologie,
langues rgionales, polynomie. Paris: LHarmattan.
Mar-Molinero, C. and P. Stevenson (eds.) 2006. Language ideologies, policies and
practices: Language and the future of Europe. Language and globalization.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marquis, J. 1997. La situtiaon dla langue en Guernesi depis la Rformtiaon au jour
dogniet, Le Viquet: 616.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank 2009. Issues in orthography development: examples from
Dgernesiais / Guernsiaus / Giernesiei / Djernezi, paper presented at workshop on
Writing Systems: Analysis, Acquisition and Use II, Institute of Education, London, 28
November 2009. Full version in preparation.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank 2013. Speakers and language revitalisation: a case study
of Guernesiais (Guernsey), in M. C. Jones and S. Ogilvie (eds.), Keeping Languages
Alive. Cambridge University Press.
Marquis, Y. and J. Sallabank forthcoming. Ideologies, beliefs and revitalization of
Guernesiais (Guernsey), in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Marr, J. 2001. The history of Guernsey: The Bailiwicks story. Guernsey Press.
Martin-Jones, M. and S. Romaine 1986. Semilingualism: a half-baked theory of
communicative competence, Applied Linguistics 7: 2638.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative researching, 2nd edn. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matras, Y. 1999. Writing Romani: the pragmatics of codification in a stateless
language, Applied Linguistics 20(4): 481502.
Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds.) 2009. English as a lingua franca: Studies and
findings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
May, S. 2004. Rethinking linguistic human rights: answering questions of identity,
essentialism and mobility, in Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 3554.
May, S. 2006. Contesting minority language rights: addressing the attitudes of majority
language speakers, plenary, Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, Limerick, Ireland, 68
July 2006.
McArdle, F. 2006. Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh, in J. T. Koch (ed.), Celtic culture: A
historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. 407.
McCall, G. (1994) Nissology: the study of islands, Journal of The Pacific Society
17(23): 10693.1
McCarty, T. L. (ed.) 2011. Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.
McDonald, M. 1989. We are not French! Language, culture and identity in Brittany.
London: Routledge.
McKenna Brown, R. (ed.) 2002. Endangered Languages and their literatures:
Proceedings of the sixth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or non-native: whos worth more?, ELT Journal 46(4): 34
349.
Meek, B. A. 2011. We are our language: An ethnography of language revitalization in a
Northern Athabaskan community. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Menger, L. E. 1904. The Anglo-Norman dialect. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mtivier, G. 1831. Rimes guernesiaises par un Ctelain. Guernsey: Barbet.
Mtivier, G. 1843. Rimes guernesiaises. London.
Mtivier, G. 1866. Fantaisie Guernesiaise: Dans le langage du pays, la langue de la
civilisation, et celle du commerce. Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Mtivier, G. 1870. Dictionnaire Franco-Normand, ou Recueil des mots particuliers au
dialecte de Guernesey: Faisant voir les relations romaines, celtiques et tudesques.
Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Mtivier, G. 1883. Posies guernesiaises et franaises, avec glossaire. Guernsey:
Thomas-Mauger Bichard.
Michaelis, S. 2011. The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures project and first
results, presentation in School of Oriental and African Studies Linguistics Seminar
series, London, 1 March 2011. Abstract available at
www.hrelp.org/events/seminars/abstracts/michaelis.pdf, accessed 1 April 2011.
Milroy, J. 1984. The history of English in the British Isles, in P. Trudgill (ed.),
Language in the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. 531.
Milroy, J. and L. Milroy 1999. Authority in language: Investigating language
prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.
Milroy, L. 1982. Language and group identity, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 3(3): 20716.
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, L. 2002. Social networks, in J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-
Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 549
72.
Ministry of Justice 2006. Background briefing on the Crown Dependencies: Jersey,
Guernsey and the Isle of Man. London: Ministry of Justice, Crown Dependencies
Branch.
Mohanty, S. P. 2000. The epistemic status of cultural identity, in P. M. L. Moya and
M. R. Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of
postmodernism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2966.
Monteil, M. 2000. Les relations entre la France et les les anglo-normandes de la fin du
XIXe sicle au milieu du XXe sicle: un episode majeur limmigration franaise
Jersey de 1850 1950, PhD thesis, Universit de Provence.
Moore, A. W. 1924. A vocabulary of the Anglo-Manx dialect. Oxford University Press.
Moore, R. E. 2007. From endangered to dangerous: two types of sociolinguistic
inequality (with examples from Ireland & the US), Kings College London Working
Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 45: 122.
Morgan, P. 2000. The Gael is dead; long live the Gaelic: the changing relationship
between native and learner Gaelic users, in G. McCoy and M. Scott (eds.), Gaelic
identities: Aithne Na Ngael. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queens University.
12632.
Moriarty, M. 2011. New roles for endangered languages, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 44658.
Mosel, U. 2012. Creating educational materials in language documentation projects:
creating innovative resources for linguistic research, in F. Seifart, G. Haig, N. P.
Himmelmann, D. Jung, A. Margetts and P. Trilsbeek (eds.), Potentials of language
documentation: Methods, analyses, and utilization. Language Documentation &
Conservation Special Publication No. 3. Mnoa: University of Hawaii Press. 11117.
Moseley, C. (ed.) 2010. Atlas of the worlds languages in danger. Paris: UNESCO.
Moseley, C., N. Ostler and H. Ouzzate (eds.) 2001. Endangered languages and the
media: Proceedings of the fifth conference of the Foundation for Endangered
Languages. Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Mougeon, R. and E. Beniak 1989. Language contraction and linguistic change: the case
of Welland French, in N. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge
University Press. 287312.
Moya, P. M. L. 2000. Introduction: reclaiming identity, in P. M. L. Moya and M. R.
Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of
postmodernism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 226.
Mufwene, S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Mufwene, S. 2004. Language birth and death, Annual Review of Anthropology 33:
20122.
Mhlhusler, P. 1974. Pidginization and simplification of language. Canberra:
Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National
University.
Mhlhusler, P. 1990. Reducing Pacific languages to writing, in J. E. Joseph and T.
J. Taylor (eds.), Ideologies of language. London: Routledge. 189205.
Mhlhusler, P. 1992. Preserving languages or language ecologies? A top-down
approach to language survival, Oceanic Linguistics 31(2): 16380
(DOI:110.2307/3623012).
Mhlhusler, P. 1996. Linguistic ecology. London: Routledge.
Mhlhusler, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology, Current Issues in
Language Planning 1(3): 30667.
Muljai, Z. 1982. Zur Kritik des Terminus dachlose Aussenmundart: Beitrag zur
Typologie der romanischen Ausbausprachen, Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie und
Linguistik 49(3): 34450.
Muljai, Z. 1984. Il fenomeno Uberdachung tetto, copertura nella sociolinguistica
(con esempi Romanzi), Linguistica 24: 7796.
Muljai, Z. 1986. Lenseignement de Heinz Kloss (modifications, implications,
perspectives), Langages 21(83): 5364.
Muljai, Z. 1989. ber den Begriff Dachsprache, in U. Ammon (ed.), Status and
function of languages and language varieties. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
25677.
Myhill, J. 1999. Identity, territoriality and minority language survival, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20(1): 3450.
Nathan, D. 2011. Digital archiving, in P. K. Austin and J. Sallabank (eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press. 22574.
Nekvapil, J. 2006. From language planning to language management, Sociolinguistica
20: 92104.
Nekvapil, J. and M. Nekula 2006. On language management in multinational
companies in the Czech Republic, Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2&3): 307
27.
Nettle, D. and S. Romaine 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the worlds
languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neustupn, J. V. and J. Nekvapil 2003. Language management in the Czech Republic,
Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 181366. Repr. in R. B. Baldauf and R.
Kaplan (eds.), Language planning and policy in Europe, Vol. II. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. 16201.
Newman, P. 2003. The endangered languages issue as a hopeless cause, in M. Janse
and S. Tol (eds.), Language death and language maintenance: Theoretical, practical
and descriptive approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 114.
Nieldzielski, N. A. and D. R. Preston 2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikolov, M. 1999. Why do you learn English? Because the teacher is short: a study
 of Hungarian childrens foreign language learning motivation, Language Teaching
Research 3(1): 3356.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow: Longman.
hIfearnin, T. 2004. Le mannois entre dialecte moribond du galique commun et
langue nationale de lle de Man, in Eloy (ed.), Vol. II, 47383.
hIfearnin, T. 2007a. Manx orthography and language ideology in the Gaelic
continuum, in Eloy and hIfearnin (eds.), 15970.
hIfearnin, T. 2007b Promoting difference: autochthonous language policy in
European micro-polities, paper presented at In/Difference: Current and Historical
Perspectives on Cultures in Contact, Conference of the Modern Languages Committee
of the Royal Irish Academy, University of Limerick, 9 November 2007.
hIfearnin, T. 2010. Language policy, revitalisation and regeneration after language
shift: language policy in European micro-polities, paper presented at Sociolinguistics
Symposium 18, University of Southampton, 14 September 2010.
hIfearnin, 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): 34865 (special issue on attitudes towards
endangered languages).
hIfearnin, T. forthcoming. Paradoxes of engagement with Irish language community
management, practice and ideology, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
London: Pinter.
Ostler, N. (ed.) 1998. Endangered languages: What role for the specialist? Proceedings
of the second conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath:
Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Ostler, N.(ed.) 1999. Endangered languages and education: Proceedings of the fourth
conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath: Foundation for
Endangered Languages.
Ostler, N. and B. Rudes (eds.) 2000. Endangered languages and literacy: Proceedings
of the fourth conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages. Bath:
Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Paradis, M. 2005. Not in Latine or French or any other language than English . . .,
paper presented at LingO: Postgraduate Linguistics Conference, Mansfield College,
Oxford University, 2324 September, 2005.
Parsons Y., E. Reyhner and J. Reyhner 2009. Prospects for the Navajo language, in
Goodfellow (ed.), 4769.
Patrick, D. 2004. The politics of language rights in the eastern Canadian Arctic, in
Freeland and Patrick (eds.), 17190.
Patrick, P. L. 2002. The speech community, in J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N.
Schilling-Estes (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change. Oxford:
Blackwell. 573600.
Paulston, C. B. 1987. Catalan and Occitan: comparative test cases for a theory of
language maintenance and shift, International Journal of the Sociology of Language
63: 3162.
Payne, G. and J. Payne. 2004. Key concepts in social research. London/Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. 2005. Postmodernism in language policy, in Ricento (ed.), 6076.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pluquet, F. 1827. Le Roman de Rou et des ducs de Normandie. Rouen.
Posner, R. 1993. Language conflict in romance: decline, death and survival, in R.
Posner and J. N. Green (eds.), Bilingualism and linguistic conflict in romance, Vol. V.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 4175.
Posner, R. 1997. Linguistic change in French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Potter, J. and M. Wetherell 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes
and behaviour. London: Sage.
Preston, D. R. 1989. Perceptual dialectology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Preston, D. R.(ed.) 1999. Handbook of perceptual dialectology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Preston, D. R. 2000. Some plain facts about Americans and their language, American
Speech 75(4): 398401.
Price, G. (ed.) 1984. The languages of Britain. London: Edward Arnold.
Price, G.(ed.) 2000a. Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Priestly, T. 1989. Our dialect sounds stupid: the importance of attitudes to so-called
sub-standard languages codes as a factor in the (non-)retention of Slovene in Carinthia,
Austria, in D. Gorter, J. F. Hoekstra, L. G. Jansma and J. Ytsma (eds.), Fourth
International Conference on Minority Languages, Vol. II: Western and Eastern
European Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 13548.
Ramisch, H. 1989. The variation of English in Guernsey, Channel Islands. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Rampton, B. 2006. Language in late modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Reyhner, J. (ed.) 1997. Teaching indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona
University.
Reyhner, J. and L. Lockard (eds.) 2009. Indigenous language revitalization:
Encouragement, guidance & lessons learned. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., G. Cantoni, R. N. St Clair and E. Parsons Yazzie (eds.) 1999. Revitalizing
indigenous languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., J. Martin, L. Lockard and S. W. Gilbert (eds.) 2000. Learn in beauty:
Indigenous education for a new century. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Reyhner, J., O. Trujillo, R. L. Carrasco and L. Lockard (eds.) 2003. Nurturing native
languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/NNL.
Rice, K. 2009. Must there be two solitudes? Language activists and linguists working
together, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 3759.
Rice, K. 2010. The linguists responsibility to the community of speakers: community-
based research, in Furbee and Grenoble (eds.), 2536.
Ricento, T. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and
planning, Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 196213.
Ricento, T.(ed.) 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ricento, T. and T. G. Wiley 2002. Editors introduction: language, identity, and
education and the challenges of monoculturalism and globalization, Journal of
Language, Identity and Education 1(1): 15.
Riddell, A. 2007. Jersey: the development of an Island Cultural Strategy, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 1(1): 7287.
http://shimajournal.org/issues/v1n1/j.%20Ridell%20Shima%20v1n1.pdf, accessed 17
December 2012.
Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization. London: Sage.
Romaine, S. 2002a. Can stable diglossia help to preserve endangered languages?,
 International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157: 13540.
Romaine, S. 2002b. The impact of language policy on endangered languages,
International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4(1): 194212.
www.unesco.org/shs/ijms/vol4/issue2/art3, accessed 31 January 2013.
Romaine, S. 2006. Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity, Language Policy
5(4): 44173 (DOI &#x449;410.1007/s10993100061903610991).
Romaine, S. 2008. Linguistic diversity, sustainability, and the future of the past, in
King et al. (eds.), 722.
Roussel, J. 1997. The big plough, Review of the Guernsey Society 53(3): 6871.
Rubin, J. and B. H. Jernudd (eds.) 1971. Can language be planned? Honolulu: East-
West Center.
Ruz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning, NABE Journal 8(2): 1534.
Ryan, E. B. 1979. Why do low-prestige language varieties persist?, in H. Giles and R.
N. St Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. 14557.
S., D. F. 1882. The Channel Islands and islanders. Edinburgh.
Sallabank, J. 2002. Writing in an unwritten language: the case of Guernsey French,
Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 21744.
Sallabank, J. 2005. Prestige from the bottom up: a review of language planning in
Guernsey, Current Issues in Language Planning 6(1): 4463.
Sallabank, J. 2010a. Endangered language maintenance and revitalisation: the role of
social networks, Anthropological Linguistics 52(3): 184205.
Sallabank, J. 2010b. Standardisation, prescription and polynomie: can Guernsey follow
the Corsican model?, Current Issues in Language Planning 11(4): 31130.
Sallabank, J. 2011a. Norman languages of the Channel Islands: current situation,
language maintenance and revitalisation, Shima: The International Journal of
Research into Island Cultures 5(2): 1641.
Sallabank, J. 2011b. Language policy for endangered languages, in P. K. Austin and J.
Sallabank (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge
University Press. 27790.
Sallabank, J. 2012a. Diversity and language policy for endangered languages, in B.
Spolsky (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge University
Press. 10023.
Sallabank, J. 2012b. From language documentation to language planning: not
necessarily a direct route, in F. Seifart, G. Haig, N. P. Himmelmann, D. Jung, A.
Margetts and P. Trilsbeek (eds.), Potentials of language documentation: Methods,
analyses, and utilization. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 11825.
Sallabank, J. 2013. Can majority support save an endangered language? A case study of
language attitudes in Guernsey, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 34(4): 33247 (special issue on attitudes towards endangered languages).
Sallabank, J. and G. White, 2006. Attitudes towards regional varieties of English in the
Inner Circle, paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, 68 July 2006,
Limerick, Ireland. Also presented at the British Association of Applied Linguistics
Annual Conference, Cork, Ireland, September 2006.
Sayers, D. 2009. Reversing Babel: declining linguistic diversity and the flawed
attempts to protect it, PhD thesis, University of Essex.
Schieffelin, B. B., K. A. Woolard and P. V. Kroskrity 1998. Language ideologies:
Practice and theory. Oxford University Press.
Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge.
Schiffman, H. F. 2002. Comment, International Journal of the Sociology of Language
157: 14150.
Schiffman, H. F. 2004. Diglossia as a sociolinguistic situation, 12 December 2004.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/messeas/diglossia/node3.html., accessed 27 August
2005.
Schjerve, R. R. 1980. Bilingualism and language shift in Sardinia, in Minority
languages today: A selection from the papers read at the first Conference on Minority
Languages, Glasgow University. Edinburgh University Press. 20817.
Schjerve, R. R.(ed.) 2003. Diglossia and power. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, A. 1985. Young peoples Dyirbal: An example of language death from
Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, E.W., K. Burridge, B. Kortmann, R. Mesthrie and C. Upton (eds.) 2004. A
handbook of varieties of English. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schreier, D. 2003. Isolation and language change: Contemporary and sociohistorical
evidence from Tristan da Cunha English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schreyer, C. 2011. Re-building language habitats: connecting language planning and
land planning for sustainable futures, in J. Sallabank (ed.), Language documentation
and description, Vol. IX. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 3557.
Scovel, T. 1998. Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Sealey, A. and B. Carter 2001. Social categories and sociolinguistics: applying a realist
approach, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152: 119.
Sealey, A. and B. Carter 2004. Applied linguistics as social science. London:
Continuum.
Sebba, M. 1998. Orthography as practice and ideology: the case of Manx, Working
Papers of the Centre for Language in Social Life, Lancaster University 102: n.p.
www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/pubs/clsl/clsl102.pdf, accessed 9 January 2013.
Sebba, M. 2000. Orthography as literacy: how Manx was reduced to writing, in
Ostler and Rudes (eds.), 6470.
Sebba, M. 2005. Holiday notes on the Manx revival, 18 September 2005.
http://web.onetel.com/~marksebba/Manx/Manxrev.html, accessed 18 September 2005.
Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around
the world. Cambridge University Press.
Sebire, H. 2005. The archaeology and early history of the Channel Islands. Stroud:
Tempus.
Seidlhofer, B. 2006. Towards making Euro-English a linguistic reality, in K. Bolton
and B. B. Kachru (eds.), World Englishes. London: Routledge. 4750.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209
41.
Shandler, J. 2006. Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular language and culture.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Silverstein, M. 1996. Monoglot standard in America: standardization and metaphors
of linguistic hegemony, in D. Brenneis and R. K. S. Macaulay (eds.), The matrix of
language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 284
306.
Sjgren, A. 1964. Les Parlers Bas-Normands de lle de Guernesey. Paris: Librairie C.
Klincksieck.
Skeet, R. M. 2000. Remarks on language revival and survival: a case study of Jersey
Norman French, MA thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1999. Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., L. Maffi and D. Harmon 2003. Sharing a world of difference: The
earths linguistic, biological and cultural diversity. Paris: UNESCO/Terralingua/World
Wide Fund for Nature.
Speas, M. 2009. Someone elses language: on the role of linguists in language
revitalization, in Reyhner and Lockard (eds.), 2336.
Spence, N. C. W. 1993. A brief history of Jrriais. Jersey: Le Don Balleine.
Spivak, G. C. 1999. A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing
present. Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spolsky, B. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2003. Reassessing Maori regeneration, Language in Society 32(4): 553
78.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009a. Language management. Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009b. Language management for endangered languages, paper presented
at Workshop on Endangered Languages: Beliefs and Ideologies, School of Oriental
and African Studies, London, 2728 February 2009. Published as Language
management for endangered languages: the case of Navajo, in P. K. Austin (ed.),
Language documentation and description, Vol. VI. London: School of Oriental and
African Studies. 11731.
Spolsky, B. forthcoming. Language beliefs and the management of endangered
languages, in Austin and Sallabank (eds.).
States of Guernsey 2002. 2001 Guernsey census: Report on the census of population
and households. Guernsey: States of Guernsey Advisory and Finance Committee.
States of Guernsey. 2010. Our way of life: A cultural strategy for Guernsey 201014.
www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=13534853, accessed 23 June
2011.
States of Guernsey Policy Council (2012). Guernsey Annual Population Bulletin. St
Peter Port: States of Guernsey.
States of Jersey 2002. Report on the 2001 census. St Helier: Etat Civil Committee.
States of Jersey 2005. Development of a cultural strategy for the island. Jersey: States
Greffe.www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/22189-12814-
1972005.htm, accessed 21 June 2010 (no longer available January 2013).
States of Jersey Statistics Unit 2012. 2012 Jersey population projections. St Helier:
States of Jersey.
Steger, M. B. 2003. Globalization. Oxford University Press.
Stowell, B. 2000. Manx Gaelic in the year 2000.
www.gaelg.iofm.net/INFO/naaclt/mx3.htm, accessed 19 December 2012.
Stowell, B. 2005. The case of Manx Gaelic / Yn Ghailckagh, in D. Nill (ed.),
Rebuilding the Celtic languages: Reversing language shift in the Celtic countries.
Talybont, Ceredigion: Y Lolfa. 383416.
Sugita, Y. 2007. Language revitalization or language fossilization? Some suggestions
for language documentation from the viewpoint of interactional linguistics, in P. K.
Austin, O. Bond and D. Nathan (eds.), Language documentation & linguistic theory,
Vol. I. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 24350.
Sutherland, W. J. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and
species, Nature 423: 27679.
Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to SLA
and applied linguistics, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 199212.
Tagliamonte, S. and A. DArcy 2004. Hes like, shes like: the quotative system in
Canadian youth, Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(4): 493514 (DOI:410.1111/j.1467
9841.2004.00271.x).
Taglioni, F. 2011. Insularity, political status and small insular spaces, Shima: The
International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 5/2: 4567.
Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behavior, Social Science Information
13: 6593.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
Tauli, V. 1968. Introduction to a theory of language planning. University of Uppsala.
Taylor, A. R. (ed.) 1992. Language obsolescence, shift and death in several Native
American communities, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 93
(special issue).
Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mori Mori Language Commission 2007. Planning for
Mori language regeneration. Wellington: Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Mori Mori
Language Commission.
Thieberger, N. 2002. Extinction in whose terms?, in Bradley and Bradley (eds.), 310
28.
Thiers, G. 1986. Epilinguisme, elaboration linguistique et volont populaire, trois
supports de lindividuation sociolinguistique corse, Langages 21(83): 6574.
Thomason, S. G. and T. Kaufman 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic
linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomson, R. L. 1969. The study of Manx Gaelic: Sir John Rhys memorial lecture, 1969.
Repr. in the Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 55. London: Oxford University
Press.
Thomson, R. L. 2000. Manx, in G. Price (ed.), Languages in Britain and Ireland.
Oxford: Blackwell. 5869.
Thomson, R. L. and A. J. Pilgrim 1988. Outline of the Manx language and literature. St
Johns, Isle of Man: Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh (The Manx Gaelic Society).
Timmis, I. 2002. Native speaker norms and international English: a classroom view,
ELT Journal 56: 2409.
Tjibaou, J.-M. 1985. Entretien. Les Temps modernes 464: 15871601.
Tollefson, J. W. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
Tollefson, J. W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy, in Ricento (ed.), 4259.
Tomlinson, H. 1994. The teaching of Guernsey French, M.Ed. dissertation, University
of Wales.
Tomlinson, H. 2008. A descriptive grammar of Guernsey French: With phonetic
pronunciation guide and verb tables. Guernsey: Self-published.
Trosset, C. S. 1986. The social identity of Welsh learners, Language in Society 15(2):
16592.
Trudgill, P. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
Trudgill, P. 1992. Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of language status in
contemporary Europe, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(2): 16777.
Trudgill, P. 2004. Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe, in
A. Duszak and U. Okulska (eds.), Speaking from the margin: Global English from a
European perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 3549.
UNESCO, Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003a. Language vitality
and endangerment: by way of introduction.
www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerm
accessed 9 January 2013.
UNESCO. 2003b. Intangible heritage.
www.unesco.org/culture/heritage/intangible/html_eng/index_en.shtml, accessed 29
November 2003.
UNESCOAd Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. 2003c. Language Vitality
and Endangerment: By way of introduction. Paris: UNESCO.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001836/183699E.pdf, accessed 6 July 2013.
Ureland, P. S. and G. Broderick (eds.) 1991. Language contact in the British Isles:
Papers from the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe,
Douglas, Isle of Man. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Urla, J. 2012. Reclaiming Basque: language, nation, and cultural activism. Reno/Las
Vegas: University of Nevada Press.
Urtaga, E. 2005. La langue basque au dbut du XXIe sicle (The Basque language in
the early 21st century), Marges Linguistiques 10: 17589.
Uttley, J. 1966. The story of the Channel Islands. London: Faber.
Viereck, W. 1988. The Channel Islands: an Anglicists no-mans land, in J. Klegraf
(ed.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius
Groos. 46878.
Waddell, E. W. 2008. Jean-Marie Tjibaou, Kanak witness to the world: An intellectual
biography. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Walker, R. 1993. Language shift in Europe and Irian Jaya, Indonesia: toward the heart
of the matter, in K. De Bot (ed.), Case studies in minority languages. Erfurt, Germany:
Association Internationale de la Linguistique Applique (AILA), 7187.
Wallace, A. F. C. 1956. Revitalization movements, American Anthropologist 58(2):
26481.
Wallace, C. 1992. Reading. Oxford University Press.
Walsh, J. 2006. Language and socio-economic development: towards a theoretical
framework, Language Problems & Language Planning 30(2): 12748.
Walsh, J. 2010. Contests and contexts: The Irish language and Irelands socio-
economic development (Reimagining Ireland). Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.
Walsh, M. 2009. Linguistic social work and the hopeless cause: the role of
linguists in dealing with endangered languages, paper presented at ELAP workshop:
Beliefs and ideologies, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 2728
February 2009.
Wardhaugh, R. 1998. An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Watson, S. 1989. Scottish and Irish Gaelic: the giants bed-fellows, in Dorian (ed.),
4159.
Watts, R. and P. Trudgill (eds.) 2002. Alternative histories of English. London:
Routledge.
Wei, Li 2000. The bilingualism reader. London: Routledge.
Wei, Li, J.-M. Dewaele and A. Housen 2002. Opportunities and challenges of
bilingualism. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whaley, L. J. 2011. Some ways to endanger an endangered language project,
Language and Education 25: 33948.
Whiteley, P. 2003. Do language rights serve indigenous interests? Some Hopi and
other queries, American Anthropologist 4: 71222.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford University
Press.
Wilkins, D. P. 2000. Even with the best of intentions. . .: some pitfalls in the fight for
linguistic and cultural survival (one view of the Australian experience), in F.
Queixalos and O. Renault-Lescure (eds.), As linguas amaznicas hoje / Les langues
dAmazonie aujourdhui. Belem: Museu Goeldi/IRD/ISA/MPEG. 6184.
Williams, G. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. London: Routledge.
Williamson, R. C. 1991. Minority languages and bilingualism: Case studies in
maintenance and shift. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wilson, G. N. 2008. The revitalization of the Manx language and culture in an era of
global change, Refereed papers from the Third International Small Island Cultures
Conference (Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, 29 June 2
July). 7481, ed. I. Novaczek. http://sicri-
network.org/ISIC3/o.%20ISIC3P%20Wilson.pdf, accessed 2 January 2013.
Wilson, G. N. 2009. But the language has got children now: language revitalisation
and education planning in the Isle of Man, Shima: The International Journal of
Research into Island Cultures 3(2): 1531.
Wilson, G. N. 2011a. Social change and language revitalization in the Isle of Man: a
post-materialist perspective, in J. Sallabank (ed.), Language documentation and
description, Vol. IX. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. 5876.
Wilson, G. N. 2011b. The role of culture in branding small islands: A case study of the
Isle of Man, plenary presentation at North Atlantic Forum: The Arts and Cultural
Heritage as Engines of Regional Development Conference, 1315 October 2011, St
Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.
www.mun.ca/harriscentre/policy/conferencesworkshops/naf/plenary2/P2_-
_Wilson.pdf, accessed 3 January 2013.
Wilson, G., H. Johnson and J. Sallabank forthcoming. Im not dead yet: a
comparative study of indigenous language revitalization in Jersey, Guernsey and the
Isle of Man. To be submitted to Current Issues in Language Planning.
Wmffre, I. 2007. Breton orthographies and dialects, Vol. II: The twentieth-century
orthography war in Brittany. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Wolfram, W. 2008. When islands lose dialects: the case of the Ocracoke Brogue,
Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 2/1: 113.
Woolard, K. A. 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of enquiry, in
Schieffelin et al. (eds.), 350.
Wright, S. 2004. Language rights, democracy and the European Union, in Freeland
and Patrick (eds.), 21942.
Zuckermann, G. A. and M. Walsh 2011. Stop, revive, survive: lessons from the Hebrew
revival applicable to the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal
languages and cultures, Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(1): 11127.
 Index
accountability 76, 205
acquisition 6, 52, 98, 114, 131132, 135, 145, 186, 198
of attitudes 61, 64
of performance vs. competence 98, 186
acquisition planning 26, 151, 185, 186
activists 12, 54, 69, 76, 86, 89, 91, 105, 142, 196, 200, 202, 206
and documentation 19, 212
and government support 146, 155
and standardisation 138, 172
as politicians 140, 150
Guernsey 98, 149150, 157, 200
Isle of Man 112, 115, 128, 145, 148, 158, 192, 200201, 219
Jersey 112, 150, 157, 179
linguists as xi, 17, 77, 131
activities 141, 204
for new speakers 84
for traditional speakers 84, 146, 193
Jrriais 151
Manx 168
of voluntary groups 145
performing arts 85
social 186
adult education 156, 185, 213
adult learners xiv, 141, 185
of Guernesiais 145, 217
of Jrriais 145
of Manx 54, 102, 114, 213
vs. children 114, 128
advocacy 7475
African American Vernacular Black English 21, 74
age 53, 68, 84, 90, 95, 113115, 117, 125, 193
Guernesiais 127, 161, 186, 212
Jrriais 172
Alderney 33, 40, 56
Anglo-Norman 37, 47, 100
anthropology xi, 1, 20, 78
 linguistic 4, 21, 23, 44, 64
Aranes 186
archiving 17, 19, 5556, 208, 210211
assimilation 15, 45
attitude shift 67, 69, 7172, 105, 112113, 146, 182
and underlying beliefs 117118
in Channel Islands 111, 190
in Isle of Man 118, 192
attitudes 4, 8, 17, 28, 39, 6062, 105106, 112, 117, 188, 198
and identity 119
definition 61
Guernsey 34, 43, 50, 66, 110112, 114
Jersey 43
modifying 26, 194
negative 62, 66, 105107, 112
of language communities 11
of new speakers 128
of non-speakers 69
of traditional speakers 128
of young people 109, 115
overt and covert 16, 62, 70, 72, 105, 135, 194, 206
researching 60, 68, 70
to Irish 205
to Manx 54
to non-standard varieties 45, 95
to policy 12, 26, 141
attrition 9, 13, 57, 9596, 125, 135, 177
Guernesiais 177
Auregnais 52, 56, 58
Ausbau 45, 48, 174, 199
Australia 86, 163, 218
authenticity 125, 135136, 138, 173
authority xiii, 11, 104, 118, 125, 129, 137, 189, 197
Guernesiais 136137
of traditional speakers 12, 94, 198
awareness 60, 69, 87
Guernesiais 161
Jrriais 113, 151
of endangerment 1, 8, 126, 187
of government policy 112
of ideology 68, 190
awareness-raising 17, 113, 143, 146, 151, 159, 167, 170, 184, 187, 189190, 204,
206, 209, 213, 218

Badlabecques 8990
Basque 9, 45, 77, 148, 165, 172, 199
behaviour 22, 28, 6162, 71, 77, 190
beliefs 28, 6163, 68, 74, 188190, 219
covert 117, 207
Bible
Guernesiais 82, 102
Jrriais 83, 102
Manx 83, 102, 171, 175, 192, 212
bilingual education 182, 196, 205
bilingualism 93, 143144, 175, 205, 207
benefits of 181, 196
societal 82
blogs 91, 207
Jrriais 90, 172, 178
Manx 134
borrowing 179, 195, 211
English 178
Guernesiais 178
branding 39, 105, 142, 166, 169, 199, 201
and correctness 134, 203, 218
and status 167
Guernesiais 158, 166167
Jrriais 167, 169
Manx 167168, 170
Brecqhou 33
Breton 39, 49, 66, 138, 144, 172, 175, 177, 211, 214
British-Irish Council 34, 60, 147, 152, 154, 178, 214
Brittany 58, 199
Bunscoill Ghaelgagh 54, 128129, 174, 181182, 186, 196, 219
and Manx at home 128, 131, 146, 181, 185
and terminology development 178
founding of 147, 181
business 141, 156, 167, 199
English in 82
Guernesiais in 158, 167, 169
Jrriais in 168, 186
Manx in 46, 101, 139, 168, 184, 200

calques 126127
Catalan 7, 186, 201
Celtic 5, 58, 215
census 51, 53
Guernsey 4, 52, 81, 98, 108
Isle of Man 5354
Jersey 5152, 213
Wales 172
Channel Islands
background 29, 31
history 36
languages or dialects 41, 44
links to UK 29
other languages spoken in 51
political structure 33
status of local languages 33
topography 36
Cheyenne 219
children 66, 68, 78, 89, 9899, 107, 113, 117, 144, 179, 183, 188, 204, 216
and Manx 114, 128, 183, 211, 219
at Eisteddfods 87, 114
choice 2, 16, 20, 76, 106107, 119, 144, 181, 198
Chumash 23
code-switching 4, 95
collateral language 45, 174175, 210
colonialism 9, 22, 25, 196, 199
commitment 62, 148, 166, 204, 209, 220
of government 153, 155157, 184, 187, 213
of learners 186, 217
of researchers 7374
community conflict 1112, 76, 129, 191, 194, 197
Guernsey 195, 220
Isle of Man 200
community dynamics 11, 61, 76, 189
competence 54, 98, 173, 186, 193, 198
consensus 68, 150, 159, 220
contact 4, 46, 68, 96, 125, 128, 131, 211212
and language change 6, 95, 118, 126, 203
cultural 66, 118
Guernesiais 177
Manx 132, 136
convergence 95, 130
in Guernesiais 96, 135, 137, 202
Cooish (Manx Language Week) 8586, 88
Coonceil ny Gaelgey (Manx Gaelic Advisory Council) 31, 129, 149, 155, 161, 178
Corbet 103
Cornish 9, 124, 175, 210211, 214
corpus planning 26, 141, 170, 177, 206, 211
and documentation 213
Guernesiais 160, 200
Jrriais 151, 212
Manx 149
correctness 12, 39, 57, 88, 94, 125, 134136, 138, 189, 194
Guernesiais 135, 137
Jrriais 171
Manx 136
Corsican 94, 105, 152, 173
counting languages 34
creative writing 86, 88, 100, 103
creoles 55, 131
critical turn 2021, 23
cross-fertilisation 152, 165, 183, 187, 189, 202, 213
Guernesiais and Jrriais 213
Guernesiais and Manx 194, 214
Jrriais and Gallo 214
Jrriais and Manx 213
Manx and Gaelic 215
of data 211
with Norman 214
culture xiii, 8, 2223, 58, 69, 78, 199

Danish 45
de Garis, Marie 82, 98, 103
demographic swamping 78, 122, 199, 201
dialects 23, 28, 82, 171172
dictionaries 94
Guernesiais 44, 103, 166, 170, 175176
Jrriais 57, 170171, 202
Manx 55, 159, 175
online 189
prestige of 170
Serquiais 57
digital media 17, 9091, 163, 177, 189
and purism 90
Guernesiais 177
 Manx 5556, 166
diglossia 8, 21, 8182, 95, 106, 198, 206
in Channel Islands 46, 81, 105, 107, 155, 163, 177, 201
discourse 2324, 156, 190
grass-roots 113, 208
Guernsey 194
Manx 192
of difficulty 144, 216
of endangerment 22
official 113
distinctiveness 3, 2324, 42, 46, 122124, 135, 141142, 182, 199, 218
Guernesiais 120
Manx 139
of Jersey 165, 169
divergence 129, 141, 172
documentation 17, 19, 24, 55, 210
and awareness-raising 17
data 18
methodology 21
of Guernesiais 126, 159, 211, 220
of Jrriais 58, 126, 220
of Manx 19, 211212
reactions to 17, 57
domain expansion 8485, 89, 97, 101, 118, 129, 172, 205207, 216
and language change 133
and terminology development 133
Guernesiais 198
Manx 134, 205
domains 21, 26, 62, 83, 100, 159, 206207, 216
and attitudes 105, 206
and diglossia 81
digital 8990, 193, 206
Guernesiais 8384, 100
loss of 104, 126
Manx 65, 149
Don Balleine Trust 113, 151, 166, 180, 183

economic advantage 21, 23, 39, 66, 105106, 144

economic downturn 157158
economic security 40, 67, 157
economics 25, 38, 40, 42, 67, 156
education 108, 189, 206
 evaluating 204
French in 82, 135
higher 144
language of 8, 26, 83, 97, 143, 172, 179, 188, 204
Manx 149
education, formal xii, 98, 110, 114, 156, 182, 185, 188, 207, 216217, 219
education, higher 35, 184
Guernsey 163, 183
Isle of Man 163
education policy 35, 50
Eisteddfod 8788, 185, 211
Guernsey 82, 84, 8789, 100, 103, 114, 117, 133, 176
Jersey 50, 87, 103, 114, 151
emigration 35, 38, 48, 91
emotional responses 23, 77, 133
empowerment 16, 191, 196, 209
endangered language community 1, 12, 75, 79, 142
definition 11
endangerment 1, 3, 6
and language change 126
and language policy 24
evaluating 76, 210
perceptions of 21
reactions to 2, 15, 24, 42
English 22, 42, 82, 100, 105, 132
and Guernesiais 46, 83, 87, 96, 176177
and Jrriais 46, 179, 186
and Manx 128, 175
in Channel Islands 7, 34, 47, 83, 156, 201
in Ireland 205, 207
influence of 59, 81, 126127, 130131, 136, 199, 202203
essentialism 9, 22, 24, 41, 77, 79, 112, 119, 125, 173, 202203, 215
Estonian 201
ethics 1718, 7576, 210
ethnicity 62, 7778, 92, 112
ethnography 60, 7073, 76, 81, 118, 120
Ethnologue 35, 248
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 6, 218
Jrriais 154, 160
Manx 155
European Union 1, 6, 30, 142, 172
evacuation 39
evaluating
goals 159, 161
outcomes xiii, 25, 188, 219
revitalisation xii, 188, 205
vitality 54, 89
voluntary groups 204, 207
evolution (of languages) 16
examinations
Jrriais 180181
Manx 113, 131, 181

Facebook 9091
family 13, 24, 62, 88, 9899, 114, 123, 188, 207
and government support 24, 185
and societal attitudes 39
Guernesiais in 106
importance of language in xii, 83, 102, 113, 179, 205206, 215217
Manx use in 146, 159, 181
policy and planning in 24, 27, 140141, 143
practices 2, 8, 83, 143
Faroese 148, 210
Fte Normande 87, 214
finance industry 35, 40, 49, 67, 108, 157158, 165
fluency 13, 54, 95, 9798, 104, 114, 172, 188
in Guernesiais 96, 161, 177, 186, 220
in Jrriais 51, 213, 220
in Manx 181, 212, 219
in reading 104, 170
of adult learners 185
of learners 114, 186
folk culture 79, 86
folk linguistics 2, 16, 93, 110, 114, 173
folk orthographies 103
folklorisation 89, 91
football 84, 121, 186
Freedom to Flourish 46, 168, 170, 192
French 7, 22, 100, 158
Acadian 4748, 55, 87, 201
and Guernesiais 4748, 96, 102, 135, 176, 198, 201202
and Jrriais 47, 135, 155, 171172, 174, 179, 201
and Occitan 172
and orthography 103
 in Brittany 66, 138
in Channel Islands 16, 33, 4445, 49, 51, 59, 81, 83, 105, 155156, 163, 201
in Corsica 106
in Mtiviers poetry 127
in religion 82
Norman 46, 55, 100, 107, 178
Frisian 140
funding 18, 68, 102, 142, 153, 156, 158, 187, 205, 214
Irish 205
Jrriais 157, 180, 213
Manx 102, 147, 156, 200
of research 18, 75

Gaelic 5, 35, 91, 172, 175, 184

dialect continuum 48, 58, 175
Galician 140
Gallo 214
gender 53, 108, 144
and status 143144
general public 1, 13, 16, 74, 86, 112113, 135, 204, 206
support of 113
German 66, 206
in Austria 5, 144
globalisation 1, 42, 73, 152, 169, 199, 202, 209
goals 189, 207
in Guernsey 152, 161, 187
in Isle of Man 213
in Jersey 184, 187
of language policy 170, 195
of linguists 18
of revitalisation xiii, 3, 19, 159, 187, 196, 204, 215, 218220
of teaching 180
of voluntary groups 146
government support 3, 68, 113, 141143, 145148, 153154, 157, 162, 204, 206
Guernesiais 110, 151, 162, 166, 190, 213
Jrriais 160, 180, 190
Manx 113, 149150, 155156, 158, 162, 178, 200, 219
government, language of
Guernesiais 34, 111
Guernsey 156
Manx 31, 155, 178
grammar 94, 126127
 Guernesiais 130, 175176
Manx 132, 212
grammatical change
Guernesiais 127
Jrriais 127
Manx 128
grass-roots activities 60, 68, 113, 145, 153, 188, 204, 206207
Guernesiais
as language name 43
Guernsey Language Commission 185, 195, 213
Guernsey Language Strategy 159160

Hebrew 179
hegemony 21, 23, 44, 48, 65, 138, 189, 205
heritage 4, 105, 108, 116, 119, 123, 142, 191
and branding 167
and majority population 125, 200
and young people 203
Isle of Man 134
Jersey 169
Herm 33
humour 9193, 100
in Guernesiais 9192
Hungarian 45, 144

identity xiii, 4, 8, 18, 20, 2223, 46, 66, 77, 81, 88, 105, 112, 191, 197, 199
and postmodernism 7778
construction of 44, 77, 92, 119, 121122, 125, 139, 181, 203
cultural 1, 79, 191
ethnic 23, 78, 121, 200, 202
ethnolinguistic 4, 12, 22, 77, 79, 123, 199, 218
Guernsey 33, 108, 120122, 191
Isle of Man 23, 46, 148, 181
Jersey 120, 169, 191
language as symbol of 45, 77, 173
Serquiais 121
ideological clarification xii, 69, 75, 139, 142, 187, 189, 217, 220
ideology 2, 17, 19, 24, 26, 6063, 74, 79, 89, 105, 188190, 197, 219
and correctness 135, 138
changing 173, 190
covert 190, 192, 197
definition 6364
 Guernsey 184, 193
new vs. traditional speakers 129
researching 7, 60, 64, 76, 190
static vs. dynamic 65, 197198, 200, 202, 209
ideology shift 6667, 72, 105
immersion education 26, 179, 182
Manx 181, 196
immigrants 117, 123125, 193
and Jrriais 125
and Manx 124
support of 51, 124
immigration 35, 38, 4849, 58, 78, 82, 124
Guernsey 49, 110
Isle of Man 50, 122, 158
implementation 153, 159, 187, 197, 204
and attitudes 194
evaluating 161
Guernsey 151152, 177, 186
Isle of Man 150, 159
of immersion education 181
of policy 2526, 28, 60, 80, 141, 149150, 188189, 200, 203, 205, 214
inclusiveness 122, 196, 198, 202
individuation 45, 199
inequality 21, 24
intangible cultural heritage 6, 142
intergenerational transmission xii, 8, 13, 19, 72, 83, 95, 97, 99, 143, 161, 172, 203,
205, 216217
and official support 149
and status 202
and variation 174
Guernesiais 39, 136, 197
Irish 205
Jrriais 107, 151
Manx 14, 99, 146, 205
vs. lessons in schools 113, 179, 205, 217, 219
intermarriage 4, 49, 123
internet 101, 189
Guernesiais 90, 160
Jrriais 90, 151, 154, 162, 178179, 186, 190, 208, 213
Manx 185, 192
interviews 18, 72, 112
Guernsey 71, 8182, 102, 108, 117
 in schools, Guernsey 114115, 117
on language planning 141
Ireland 149, 163, 186
Irish 78, 88, 140, 147148, 205, 207, 209
and Manx 41, 45, 102, 128, 175, 181, 211
compulsory 110, 148
islandness 4042
Isle of Man
background 29
history 3637
links to UK 29
political structure 31
topography 36
isolation 42, 96
Guernesiais 94, 96, 186
Italian 47

Jrriais
as language name 43
Jersey Language Office. See LOffice du Jrriais
Jethou 33

Kaurna 9
Kubokota 4

LAssemblie dJrriais 85, 146

LAssembllae dGuernsiais 57, 85, 130
LOffice du Jrriais 57, 8990, 102, 130, 134, 151, 163, 167, 171172, 178180,
183, 185, 191, 202, 205, 214
La Guaine du Vouest 84, 86
la Socit Guernesiaise 102, 166
la Socit Jersiaise 171, 212
language boundaries 4, 79
language change xiii, 6, 16, 65, 76, 104, 125, 129, 177, 194, 212
attitudes to 12, 16, 95, 118, 129, 134, 137, 189, 194, 198, 202203
Guernesiais 6, 95, 127, 178, 212
Jrriais 95, 178
Manx 95, 131
language death 3, 5, 8, 14, 16, 198
Manx 9, 23, 5354
language ecology 20, 26, 39, 95, 173, 208, 212
language loss 9, 23, 42, 79, 186
and identity 77, 202
language maintenance 10, 57, 84, 198, 202
language management 2728
language obsolescence 6, 14, 126127, 131
Language Officers 140141, 150, 153, 167, 187, 192
and voluntary groups 153, 158
Guernsey 112, 114, 151, 158159, 194, 207
Isle of Man 85, 90, 99, 150, 157159, 161, 178, 180, 184, 192
Jersey 53, 98, 151, 194
language planners 13, 142
language planning 2, 1920, 2528, 72, 95, 110, 117, 134, 140, 187, 189190, 194
and attitude shift. See prestige planning
and attitudes 2627, 62, 204
and ideology 190, 197, 204
and practice 25
bottom-up 140, 189, 203204, 206207
definition 26
Guernsey 189
Isle of Man 27, 141, 149150, 155, 185, 189, 217
Jersey 141, 160, 189, 213
top-down 27, 60, 68, 140, 147, 188189, 203, 206
unplanned 25, 187, 204
language policy 2, 15, 20, 2425, 28, 140, 142143, 187, 197
and identity 201, 203
and ideology 26, 63, 65, 114, 197
and linguists 74, 76
and planning 2426
and practice 190
coherence in 161, 167
definition 25, 140, 190
evaluating 188, 203
government 113, 123, 141142
Guernsey 71, 150, 153, 161, 213
individual 144
Isle of Man 58, 113, 149150, 155
Jersey 150, 179
overt and covert 144, 170, 190
researching 72, 112
top-down 2, 24, 147, 166, 193, 206, 209
language practices 2, 7, 1112, 23, 28, 48, 60, 72, 79, 104105, 140141, 190, 198
and planning 142, 206
changes in 129, 215
language shift 1, 5, 8, 12, 1617, 79, 105, 123, 144
 definition 9
explanations for 17, 2021, 24, 36, 68, 106, 110
Hungarian 5, 66
research into 74
language support 10
language-in-education planning 179, 183 see acquisition planning
languages, defining 34, 22, 95, 212
latent speakers 14, 8788, 94, 98, 131, 186, 198
of Guernesiais 175, 186187, 200
Latvian 50
learners 12, 88, 90, 97, 99, 124, 154, 186
and orthography 104, 202
and variation 173
of Guernesiais 97, 137, 160, 175176, 186, 217
of Jrriais 97, 125, 171, 208, 213, 217
of Manx 98, 159, 181, 200, 213
learning materials 1819, 93, 170171, 204, 210, 219
for children 114
Guernesiais 145, 183
Jrriais 90, 151, 171, 183, 213
Manx 56, 102, 131, 181, 183
online 90, 189
legitimacy xiii, 11, 104, 125, 129, 136, 138, 198, 200
Guernesiais 137
Manx 134
Les Ravigotteurs 98, 102, 130
lessons 88, 9899, 112
in Guernesiais 107108, 110, 185
in Jrriais 103, 112, 115, 151, 171, 174, 184185
in Manx 150, 157, 165
lessons in schools 141, 183, 188, 206, 216
effectiveness of 215
Guernesiais 108, 110, 114115, 130, 135, 179180
Jrriais 113, 124, 151, 179180, 183, 205, 208, 213
Manx 124, 148, 150, 155, 159, 180, 182, 213214
Letzebuergesch 206
lexical impoverishment 96, 126
lifestyle 40, 82, 113
linguistic determinism 2223
linguistic diversity 5, 20, 25, 27, 76, 172, 190, 217
and biodiversity 20, 22
definition 172
 divisiveness of 111112
loss of 1, 11, 73
support for 27, 142
linguistic ecology 7, 20, 22
linguistic human rights 23
linguistic landscape 3, 134, 142, 163, 166, 170, 189, 204, 207, 218
French in 163
Guernesiais in 158
Jrriais in 90, 205, 208
Manx in 155, 163, 168, 214
linguistic social work 7475
Linguistic Society of America 3, 5, 23, 222
literacy 14, 63, 83, 99100, 174, 196
in Guernesiais 52, 100, 102
in Manx 55, 177
literature 5, 126
in Guernesiais 100
in Jrriais 171, 212
in Manx 102, 174, 212
in Norman 100
lOffice du Jrriais 151, 154
Luqa 4

Madeira 49
majority population 69, 121, 124, 145, 179, 201
majority support 68, 112, 139, 187, 206, 220
Manx
and Celtic 35, 58
and Gaelic 128
Bunscoill variety of 128, 131, 211
consonant mutation 128, 144, 174
continuity of use 54, 134, 192
counting system 128
origins 48
Manx Heritage Foundation 31, 101, 150
Manx National Heritage 55, 150, 156, 192
Manx pre-schools 25, 90, 150, 181, 183, 196, 205
Manx-medium education 114, 146, 153, 156, 159, 174, 178179, 181182, 196,
205, 211, 214215, 219
secondary level 183
Manx-medium youth club 186
Mori 10, 68, 147, 196, 215
marginalisation 20, 64
marketing 105, 142, 162, 192, 206, 218
and heritage 192
Guernesiais 169
Jrriais 168, 170
Manx 169
master-apprentice programmes 26, 186187
media 16, 20, 27, 40, 60, 75, 82, 87, 89, 113, 165, 189, 207
Guernsey 191
Manx 159, 166
Serquiais 166
metadata 17, 56, 211
Mtivier, George 81, 100, 103, 127, 135
Miami 9
minoritisation 8, 20
modernisation 106, 129, 198, 201
Guernesiais 178
Jrriais 178, 205
Manx 134
modernity 1, 89, 105, 111, 119, 138, 191
Guernesiais 115, 120
Isle of Man 192
Jrriais 178, 191
Mohegan 9
Monaco 46
monolingual ideology 8, 16, 27, 105
monolingualism 7, 20, 207
Mooinjer Veggey Trust (Manx-medium education) 25, 150, 156, 183, 196
motivations 68, 72
and gender 144
and Manx-medium education 181
of activists 215
of businesses 170
of communities 75
of learners 99, 188
of parents 181
of policy-makers 142
of politicians 215
of researchers 18, 73
of young people 114115, 117, 183, 189
multilingualism 7, 25, 27, 143
music 56, 86, 210
 Guernesiais 86, 89
Jrriais 86, 8889, 146
Manx 85, 156, 183
Normandy 86
Mutsun 9
mutual intelligibility 4
in Channel Islands 43, 47, 72

national languages 2526, 41, 138

nationalism 25, 41, 191, 199, 202
Guernsey 149
Isle of Man 50, 148, 150, 200
Native American 149, 186, 219
native speakers 13, 136
and orthography 176
as teachers 130, 136, 182
at Eisteddfods 87
of Guernesiais 9697, 136, 186
of Jrriais 97
Navajo 193
New Caledonia 191
new speakers 13, 90, 94, 97, 99, 118, 129, 198
and language planning 209
and ownership 138, 193
at Eisteddfods 87
definition 129
Manx 212
of Guernesiais 194, 200
of Manx 9, 1314, 93, 97
New Zealand 10, 68, 147, 204, 209
non-speakers 43, 99, 195
of Guernesiais 165, 192, 194195
of Manx 200
Norman Conquest 36, 108
Normandy 30, 3637, 47, 5859, 87, 100, 121, 214
Norn 210
Norse 29, 31, 36, 122, 127, 175
nostalgia 134, 198, 204
and language planning 192
Guernesiais 133, 195, 198
Jrriais 133
Manx 134
 observation 7172, 8081
participant 70, 73, 76, 87, 216
Occitan 85, 138, 148, 172, 186, 193
occupation 53, 79, 109110, 112
Ol language family 2, 44
opportunities to speak 10, 13, 89, 94, 185, 187, 189, 203
for new speakers 97, 172, 185186, 217
for traditional speakers 97, 123, 186
Guernesiais 48, 86, 9596, 186
Jrriais 86, 186
online 91
orientations 62, 115
orthography 26, 76, 170, 174, 176, 204, 212
and standardisation 104, 170
development of 171, 177
Guernesiais 76, 103, 137, 174176, 198, 202
Jrriais 103, 171172, 174, 179
Manx 171, 174175, 178
outcomes xii, 3, 7, 26, 58, 60, 188, 208
of research 76
of teaching 180, 219
ownership (of language) xiii, 12, 19, 118, 125, 132, 136138, 191, 198, 200201,
211
and documentation 211
and nostalgia 134
of English 138
of Guernesiais 112, 137, 193, 195, 200
of Jrriais 194
Ozanne, Marjorie 103, 175

patois 4344, 5657, 82, 91, 96, 107, 111, 127, 159
perceptions 21, 23, 26, 28, 57, 61, 63, 76, 79, 9495, 190, 212, 219
of Guernesiais 107, 111, 178
of inferiority 118, 174
of Manx 7
of researchers 211
of variation 93
researching 60
performance 8688, 93
and nostalgia 198
Guernesiais 102, 130, 135
phatic communication 81, 85, 92, 100, 147, 205, 216
Picard 100
place names 163
Manx 31, 149, 155, 162
planning for language use 185
plateau 209, 219
poetry 100, 102103
in Guernesiais 100
policy-makers 19, 24, 74, 141, 196
and ideology 80
policy-making 19, 25, 141142, 190
and ideologies 188, 190
and new speakers 152, 198
bottom-up and top-down 24, 140, 145
Guernsey 152, 160
researching 7, 190
Polish 49, 124
in Guernsey 51
politicians 13, 71, 112113, 141142, 145, 156157, 194
politics xiii, 4, 13, 20, 58, 60, 73, 196, 199
and linguists 17
polynomie 94, 173, 175
Portuguese 49, 124, 172
in Guernsey 4951
in Jersey 201
positionality xi, 24, 60, 7275, 76
postmodernism 4, 2223, 71, 73, 7679, 173, 203, 206, 213
postmodernity 42
poverty 21, 25, 105106
and Manx 106, 118, 192
power 16, 25, 68, 75
prestige 6, 39, 45, 83, 87, 105, 171, 198, 203
and branding 105
and examinations 181
and orthography 171, 176
and schools 179
Guernesiais 175, 179, 198
Jrriais 180
prestige planning 26, 60, 71, 122, 161162, 185, 206
Guernsey 169
Jersey 151
pride 25, 87, 107, 197
print environment 84, 162163, 189, 217218
 Guernesiais 170
Jrriais 151, 165
Manx 163
proficiency 8, 14, 52, 159, 215
in Guernesiais 88, 108, 136
in Jrriais 88, 208
in Manx 54, 98, 181
of learners 129, 131, 180, 184, 216
of researcher 81
pronunciation 126, 210
of Guernesiais 127, 144, 176
of Jrriais 132, 171
of Manx 131
Protestantism 49, 82, 102
Provenal 46
publications
in Guernesiais 166
in Jrriais 166, 171, 192
in Manx 171
purism 6, 12, 14, 19, 42, 57, 65, 84, 118, 125, 134, 190, 194, 198
Guernesiais 177
Jrriais 130
Manx 128, 131, 192, 212

qualitative research 69, 7273, 112

quantitative research 7172
Quechua 7
questionnaires 69, 7172, 112
Guernsey 71, 81, 83, 96, 102, 107108, 110111, 114115, 117, 120, 122, 124
Jersey 120

radio 18
Guernesiais 165
Jrriais 165
Manx 156, 165
Rama 182
reading 99, 101
Guernesiais 176
Jrriais 172
recognition 147
and standardisation 172
of Guernesiais 153, 160161
 of Jrriais 154, 160
of Manx 154155
official 26, 205
symbolic 154
recordings 56
of Guernesiais 5657, 126
of Jrriais 58, 126
of Manx 55, 127, 192, 211
of Serquiais 57
religion 82, 102
and English 102
and French 102, 105
and Guernesiais 82
and literacy 102
in Channel Islands 16, 46, 86
rememberers 12, 14, 198
research methods xi, 6061, 66, 69, 71, 76, 108, 211
researcher stance 17, 60, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79
researchers paradox 60, 70, 72, 76
researchers 13, 75, 141
as participants 75
resilience 11, 208209
reversing language shift (RLS) 9, 23, 69, 87, 216217
revitalisation 17, 2425, 84, 129, 147, 191, 209210, 219
alternative terms 9
and documentation 18, 210, 212
and education 83, 179, 185
and language change 131132
definition 910
methodology 21
of dead languages 8, 68
of Guernesiais 120, 194
of Manx 9, 145, 213
researching 6, 74
vs. maintenance 202
Romantic movement 5, 100
Ryuku Islands, Japan 87

Sardinia 116
Sark 33, 52, 56, 89
schools 2627, 179
and language policy 141142
 Guernesiais in 107, 179
Jrriais in 107
Scotland 37, 149, 216
Scots Gaelic 45, 88, 177
and Manx 41, 45, 175, 211
script. See orthography; corpus planning
Second World War 3940, 106, 137
secret language 117, 203
self-actualisation 67
self-esteem 6667, 136, 148
Guernesiais 197
self-identification 23, 87, 118, 189, 202203
Guernsey 198
self-report 53, 61, 6970, 72, 81
of attitudes 70
semi-speakers 12, 14, 198
Serquiais 43, 56, 121
speakers of 52
signage 119, 156, 162163, 165, 207
Guernesiais 162, 167, 170
Jrriais 162163, 208
Manx 149, 165
simplification 126
of Guernesiais 127, 132
social networking 16, 89, 91, 101, 207
Jrriais 178
social networks 27, 72, 79, 90, 140, 143
Guernesiais 186
socialisation 8, 13, 136, 200, 217
sociolinguistics 41, 44, 61, 64, 78, 129, 156
Guernesiais xi, 29, 58
Jrriais 29, 58
Manx 29
solidarity 23, 85, 92, 107, 202
and humour 92
songs. See music
speaker numbers 68
Guernesiais 51, 107
increasing 97, 161, 170, 186, 198, 201, 204
Jrriais 51, 186, 201, 208
Manx 53
spelling pronunciation 103, 174, 176
stakeholders 12, 151152
standardisation 6, 20, 2526, 65, 129, 143, 170, 172173, 212
and education 172, 206, 212
Guernesiais 220
Jrriais 171, 202, 205
lack of 9394
Manx 174, 178
status 4, 17, 21, 23, 83, 107, 119, 142143, 182, 189, 202, 215
increase in 82, 102, 169, 179
of Guernesiais 43, 82, 136
of Jrriais 43, 82, 184
official xii, 16, 26, 153154, 156
status planning 26, 185, 206, 216
Guernesiais 200
Jrriais 151
strategic planning 141, 159160
Guernesiais 161
Manx 185, 213
street names 163
Channel Islands 163
Manx 31, 155, 163, 178
sustainability 11, 20, 209210
symbolic ethnicity 100, 118, 203
symbolic identity 78, 119, 122, 142, 148, 170, 182, 199, 201
and Guernesiais 120
and Jrriais 119, 123, 191
and Manx 169
symbolic use of language xiii, 87, 138, 199, 203, 217218, 220
Guernesiais 220
Irish 209
Jrriais 220

teacher training 26, 153, 159, 180, 184

in Guernsey 183184
in Isle of Man 155, 181, 184, 214
in Jersey 184
teachers 12, 19, 93, 156, 182
employment of 153
fluency of 130, 184
lack of qualifications 182, 184
legitimacy of 139, 153
of Guernesiais 136137, 176, 180, 183184, 197198
 of Jrriais 130, 151, 180, 213
of Manx 145, 150, 153, 157, 180181, 185, 213
teaching 19, 179, 202
and standardisation 170, 173
Guernesiais 130, 198, 217
Jrriais 160, 172, 180
Manx 99, 150, 217
teaching methods 182, 219
terminology 8, 10, 1415, 23, 27
terminology development 6, 26, 129, 133, 177, 204
Guernesiais 198
Jrriais 178179
Manx 128, 178
theoretical linguistics 5, 17
tourism 36, 86, 163, 165, 170, 199
in Channel Islands 40
traditional events 85, 89
and young people 117
traditional speakers 13, 86, 89, 99100, 104, 126, 138139
and correctness 125, 212
and digital media 90, 101, 179, 211
and intergenerational transmission 193, 198
and literacy 177
and new speakers 99, 128, 132, 152, 193, 198, 200
attitudes of 105, 201
definition 1314
fluency of 14, 97, 212
loss of social networks 143
of Guernesiais 53, 112, 177, 192, 194, 200, 220
of Jrriais 53, 151, 179, 186, 192, 220
of Manx 2, 132, 192, 211212
of Serquiais 220
traditionalism 137, 198, 209
see also purism
and orthography 177
and ownership 200
and revitalisation 201, 214
and variation 135
Guernesiais 176177, 200, 202
Manx 134
translation 102
treasure language 22, 99, 182
 Jrriais 182, 190
Twitter 90
Tynwald 31, 46, 149150, 155
Tynwald Day 31, 178

UNESCO 1, 6, 15, 20, 89, 142, 179

uniqueness 22, 123
urbanisation 143, 209
Urdu 45

value (of languages) 8, 77, 85, 92, 147, 191, 198, 203
of Guernesiais 116
variation 19, 93, 95, 125, 172, 212
and new speakers 129, 173
and traditional speakers 135
idiolectal 94, 104
in Channel Islands 4344, 93
in Guernesiais 93, 122, 127
in Jrriais 93, 171
in Manx 9394
Vikings 36, 122
in Isle of Man 37
vitality 21, 24, 51, 68, 109, 129, 141, 203, 206, 215
of Guernesiais 107
of Manx 54, 105, 134, 139, 163
perceptions of 60, 163
vocabulary 18, 84
see also terminology development
Jrriais 178
voluntary groups 141, 143, 145146, 153, 204
and government support 152, 185
Guernsey 146, 151, 180, 190
Isle of Man 155, 200
Jersey 151, 179, 190
language practices of 146
traditional 145, 151

Wales 68, 77, 116, 149, 152, 186, 204, 209, 214, 216, 219
Welsh 68, 102, 124, 154, 165, 172, 201, 211, 214, 216
Welsh-medium education 205
women 144
writing 99, 101, 219
Guernesiais 103, 176, 219
 Jrriais 172, 219
Manx 102

Yiddish 85
Yn heshaght Ghailckagh (Manx Gaelic Society) 55, 85, 98, 150, 174
yn Greinneyder (Manx Language Development Officer) 150, 156, 170
young people 35, 62, 89, 113, 117, 131, 144, 173, 193194
and Guernesiais 114, 116, 203
and higher education 185
and internet 90, 193
and Jrriais 151, 160, 172
and language planning 117
and Manx 183
and tradition 89, 193, 203
attitudes of 114115, 198, 203
Manx 159
YouTube 17, 89
Jrriais 167
Manx 174