Orthographic diversity and the online public face of Cornish and Breton

Presented on 6 June 2016, at theReies an 6 a vis Efen 2016, ort an SOILLSE Conference on Small Language Planning: Communities in Crisis, Glasgow Universitypednscol Glaschu, 6–8 Junea vis Efen.

Abstract

Berrscrif

Within the last fifteen years, both Cornish and Breton have seen the establishment of an official, state-supported body to take charge of supporting revival/revitalisation efforts; as well as developing language policy, these bodies now play a major role in developing the languages’ lexicon and orthography (OPLB, 2015; Sayers and Renkó-Michelsén, 2015). As the ‘public faces’ of Cornish and Breton, their websites act as a major source of information for people who wish to find out about the two languages.

Orthography is an area in which revived Cornish and revitalised Breton have both been affected by intense debates (Harasta, 2013; Wmffre, 2008). Coming to agreement over a standard form of orthography has been prioritised as a way of making the languages more accessible to learners and giving them more legitimacy in the eyes of public bodies (MacKinnon, 2003). The question of Breton orthography was left open after a series of meetings in the 1970s failed to produce a standardised system agreed on by all parties (Wmffre, 2008, p. 259 ff.). A similar collaborative process succeeded in producing a ‘Standard Written Form’ of Cornish in 2008 (Harasta, 2013, ch. 7). Today, however, one particular written form of Breton is increasingly prominent (Chalm, 2009), whilst animosity towards the new Cornish orthography has meant that alternative forms have continued to be used after its implementation (as in George, 2009).

These contradictory histories are reflected in the websites of the relevant official bodies, showing different ways of dealing with orthographic diversity in the context of the official public face of a minority language. In examining how these two websites deal with the problem of orthographies, we can identify issues in language policy relating to the pressure to assimilate to “traditional nation-building strategies” (Wright, 2007, p. 170) that demand standardisation.

References

Scrifow a wruga vy gwul mencyon anodhans

• Abalain, H. (2000). Histoire de la langue bretonne. ParisParys: Gisserot.
• Broudic, F. (2013). Langue bretonne : Un siècle de mutations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 223, 7–21.
• Burley, S. (2008). A report on the Cornish Language Survey conducted by the Cornish Language Partnership. [OnlineWar linen, accessed 5 Februarygwelys gena vy an 5 a vis Whevrel 2016.]
• Chalm, E. (2009). La grammaire bretonne pour tous. LannionLannuon: An Alarc’h Embannadurioù.
• Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• George, K. (2009). An gerlyver meur. 2nd ednsa dyllans. Penzance: Cornish Language BoardPennsans: Kesva an Tavas Kernewek.
• Harasta, J. O. (2013). InEn search of a single voice: The politics of form, use and belief in the Kernewek language. PhD thesisScrif PhD, pednscol Syracuse University.
• Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist New Series 68(4), 922–935.
• Lobb, J. andhag Ansell, G. (2004). Strategy for the Cornish language. [OnlineWar linen, accessed 26 Novembergwelys gena vy an 26 a vis Du 2015.]
• MacKinnon, K. (2003). “As Cornish as possible”—“Not an outcast anymore”: Speakers' and learners’ opinions on Cornish. AnnualAreth bledhednyek Caroline M. Kemp Lecture, Institute of Cornish Studies, PenrynFundyans rag studhyanjow a Gernow, Pennrynn.
• Office public de la langue bretonne (2015). Office public de la langue bretonne : Un établissement public de coopération culturelle dédié à la langue bretonne [OnlineWar linen, accessed 5 Februarygwelys gena vy an 5 a vis Whevrel 2016.]
• Région Bretagne (2012). Une politique linguistique pour la Bretagne&nsbp;: Rapport d’actualisation mars 2012. [OnlineWar linen, accessed 26 Novembergwelys gena vy an 26 a vis Du 2015.]
• Sallabank, J. (2011). Language policy for endangered languages. InEn P. K. Austin andha J. Sallabank (eds.pednscriforyon). The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. CambridgeKergrant: Cambridge University Press, ppff. 277–290.
• Sayers, D. andha Renkó-Michelsén, Z. (2015). Phoenix from the ashes: Reconstructed Cornish in relation to Einar Haugen’s four-step model of language standardisation. Sociolinguistica 29, 17–37.
• UNESCO (2015). A decade of promoting multilingualism in cyberspace. [OnlineWar linen, accessed 16 Maygwelys gena vy an 16 a vis Me 2016.]
• Wmffre, I. (2008). Breton orthographies and dialects: The twentieth-century orthography war in Brittany. OxfordRosojyon: Peter Lang.
• Wright, S. (2007). Language policy and language planning. InEn C. Llamas, L. Mulling andha P. Stockwell (eds.pednscriforyon). The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics. LondonLoundres: Routledge.