Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

108 Language Planning and Education
education and economic incentives. Most commentators (e.g. Fishman 1991,
2001a; Baker 2002), on the basis of sound evidence, agree that bilingual education
is of value in revitalisation, most specifically for increasing prestige, spreading literacy
and recruiting speakers to the language. It is not sufficient to guarantee revival,
however, especially if schooling is not linked back to what Fishman (1991) rightly
identifies as the crucial nexus of family–home transmission, and to other uses of the
language in the community beyond the schools.
This leads us to the role of economic incentives. It is increasingly recognised,
through the work of O’Riagain (1997, 2001) and others, that, as language groups are
simultaneously social and economic groups, language planning for revitalisation
cannot afford to be autonomous from social and economic planning. Indeed, to have
any chance of success, it needs, in Williams’s words (1991b: 315), to be ‘holistic in
nature’, to encompass even such apparently mundane yet important domains as
town and country planning (see Aitchison and Carter 2000: 152). This also entails,
as Baker (2002) suggests, giving thought to the economic foundations of minority
language communities, and it is interesting therefore to observe in this connection
that the Welsh Language Board, in a recent declaration of priorities, proposes ‘to
integrate the promotion of language use with economic principles of community
development’ (Williams, G., and Morris 2000: 188).
A final factor, believed by some to be ultimately decisive in revitalisation, is the
attitude of a language’s speakers. Ideological commitment and positive choices to use
and transmit the language are clearly essential to language survival, but perhaps not
sufficient. Much depends also on the number of speakers who are of the same
persuasion, and on whether these speakers can find the political space and control
necessary to translate aspirations into practice. In some cases (e.g. Wales and
Catalonia), this has been possible because the state has been prepared to cede some
control, even autonomy, to minority language communities. In other cases, the state
has – for ideological reasons – shown greater reluctance to concede political space for
the flourishing of linguistic diversity. However, with a growing awareness of minority
language rights at national and supranational levels, and an increased pragmatic
recognition of the cultural, even economic, value of linguistic diversity, there are
realistic prospects of more accommodating policies. Whether or not these will take
effect in time to save particular minority languages remains very uncertain.
NOTES
1. Article 1 of the Charter defines regional and minority languages as ones ‘traditionally used
within the given territory of a State by nationals who form a group numerically smaller than
the rest of the State’s population’. Excluded are ‘dialects of the official language(s) of the State
or the languages of migrants’.
2. Interesting though they are, exemplification and discussion of the details of these changes
are beyond the scope of this chapter. For further detail see McMahon 1994; Jones, M. 1998a;
Dorian 1981, 1989.