The Position of Ulster Scots
by Michael Montgomery, University of South Carolina
For the public 'language' and 'dialect' are inherently value-laden terms. They are based on the status of the group or people using a particular form of speech. A 'language' is a high variety, a 'dialect' a low one. 'Language' implies that its speakers have prestige and power, 'dialect' implies that its speakers are subordinate, even stigmatized. In Europe the practice has long been, except in obvious cases of language isolates (e.g. Basque in Spain, Breton in France), to reserve the term 'language' for only those varieties that have developed standardized, written forms (thus, French is a 'language', while Provencal is said to be a 'dialect', at least today).
According to this objective view, 'languages' have status (usually national status) because they are used by social, economic, and political institutions and are taught rigorously in the classroom. 'Dialects' have (and should have) none of these things and do not deserve to be taken entirely seriously. 'Dialect' is applied to regional and social varieties (especially rural or lower-class ones) within such units and implies subordination and inferiority.
For linguists the existence of a standard written form and identification with a nation state today have little relevance to whether a form of speech is a 'language' rather than a 'dialect'. They see the application of these terms as largely due to the accidents of history. 'Standard' varieties (the ones called 'languages') are those associated with regions or cities that have become politically and economically dominant and are usually the locus of government. Thus, when in the early modern period Madrid became dominant in Spain, its variety (Castillian) became designated as Spanish, a 'language', while that used in Asturias was a 'dialect'. The development of national languages has undoubtedly facilitated communication and fostered modern civilization, but it has also introduced an ideology that permeates modern thinking about language and denigrates those varieties of language not identified with a nation-state.
Aware there is no commonly agreed distinction between 'language' and 'dialect' and no simple line between them, linguists usually shy away from the 'language vs. dialect' question altogether. They consider it unrealistic, overly simplistic, and misleading. If Ulster Scots is to play a role in supporting the province's linguistic and cultural diversity and is to be cultivated, so much more needs to be done than merely assigning it one label or another, which unfortunately seems the only interest of too many.
Historically speaking, Ulster Scots derives from Lowland Scots, the historic language of Lowland Scotland, and is not a variety of English. Lowland Scots is a close sibling to English, with which it shares a common ancestor in Anglo-Saxon of a millennium ago. It developed along independent lines in north Britain and in some respects has remained closer to its ancient roots than its modern-day southern relative, Standard English. It became Scotland's medium for education, literature, law, and the court, close to an all-purpose, national language by the 16th century. Any consideration of the status of Ulster Scots depends on that of Lowland Scots, its progenitor. |
