“Official” Cornish orthography in the post-SWF era

Presented on 3 November 2018, atReies an 3 a vis Du 2018, ort Tionól 2018, Institute for Advanced Studies, DublinInstitiúid Ard-Léinn, Dulyn, 2–3 Novembera vis Du.

Abstract

Berrscrif

As a revived language, Cornish has seen the development of multiple orthographies in order to combat accusations of a perceived lack of authenticity or academic rigour (e.g. Ellis, 1974; Saunders, 1976). After more than twenty years of debate over Cornish orthographies (e.g. Williams, 1995; Dunbar & George, 1997), recognition by the UK government under the terms of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 2003 (Deacon, 2007) led to the creation of what was initially intended as a “single written form” for use in public inscriptions and other official contexts. However, the inevitable impossibility of finding a compromise that pleased opposing groups of speakers with greatly differing motivations and ideologies meant that the eventual “Standard Written Form” (SWF) in fact comprises two variants, known as Middle Cornish forms and Late Cornish forms, based on the corresponding stages of the traditional language (Bock & Bruch, 2008). While it was initially stated that the two would be of equal status (ibid.), this equilibrium has been hard to maintain in the ten years since the SWF was implemented: as the majority of Cornish speakers prefer Middle Cornish forms (Burley, 2008), the Late Cornish forms are less visible and are commonly perceived as “variants” of subordinate status. Examining such perceptions, as well as official materials and public inscriptions, this paper examines the position of the two “main forms” of the SWF in contemporary revived Cornish and offers some reflections on the effects of the (failed?) implementation of two official forms of equal status.

References

Scrifow a wruga vy gwul mencyon anodhans

• Bock, A. andha Bruch, B. (2008). An outline of the standard written form of Cornish. Truro: Cornish Language PartnershipTruru: Keskowethyans an Taves Kernewek.
• Burley, S. (2008). A report on the Cornish Language Survey conducted by the Cornish Language Partnership. Unpublished reportScrif hep dyllans.
• Deacon, B. (2007). Deconstructing Kernowek Kemyn: A critical review of Agan Yeth 4. InEn Everson, M. (ed.pednscrifer). Form and content in revived Cornish. WestportCathair na Mart: Evertype, ppff. 69–84.
• Dunbar, P. andha George, K. J. (1997). Kernewek Kemmyn: Cornish for the twenty-first century. Penzance: Cornish Language BoardPennsans: Kesva an Tavas Kernewek.
• Ellis, P. B. (1974). The Cornish language and its literature. LondonLoundres: Routledge.
• Gendall, R. (1988). The Cornish language: Information sheet. MenheniotMahynyes: Teere ha Tavaz.
• George, K. J. (1986). The pronunciation and spelling of revived Cornish. Penzance: Cornish Language BoardPennsans: Kesva an Tavas Kernewek.
• George, K. J. (2017). Accommodating Middle and Late bases in Cornish orthography. Unpublished paper, available here (accessed 11 July 2023).Scrif hep dyllans, a ell boas gwelys obma (gwelys gena vy 11 a vis Gorefen 2023).
• Harasta, J. O. (2013). In search of a single voice: The politics of form, use and belief in the Kernewek language. PhD thesisScrif PhD, pednscol Syracuse University.
• MacKinnon, K. (2000). Cornish at its millennium: An independent study of the language. DingwallInbhir Pheofharain: SGRÙD Research.
• Mills, J. (2013). Oxford Children’s Cornish–English visual dictionary. OxfordRosojyon: Oxford University Press.
• Padel, O. (2017). Where was Middle Cornish spoken? Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 74, 1–31.
• Rowe, N. (2018). Suggested amendments to the SWF dictionary. Unpublished report, availableDerivas hep dyllans, a ell boas gwelys hereobma (accessed 16 Octgwelys gena vy 16 a vis Hedra 2018).
• Saunders, T. (1976). Why I write in Cornish. Planet 30, 29–33.
• Williams, N. J. A. (1995). Cornish today: An examination of the revived language. Sutton Coldfield: Kernewek dre Lyther.