Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

84 Language Planning and Education
Another aspect of the GIDS scale that has attracted comment is the relationship
of the stages to each other. Fishman (1991) speaks of the scale as ‘diachronic quasiimplicational’,
suggesting thereby, as O’Riagain (2001: 195) notes, a temporal
sequencing such that certain stages are, or have to be, attained prior to others. In his
2001 volume, however, no doubt in response to misinterpretations, Fishman is more
explicit, declaring that language revitalisation is not ‘a step-by-step from the bottom
upward effort’, nor should it be worked on in ‘a lock-step stage-by-stage progression’
(2001: 467). He adds some lines later that ‘multistage efforts … are not contraindicated’,
a clarification that brings his interpretation into line with revitalisation
work carried out with Irish (O’Riagain 2001), Quechua (Hornberger and King
2001) and Welsh (Baker 2003b), in all of which cases a range of measures to promote
the language (e.g. through the media, teaching, economic development etc.) have
been implemented more or less contemporaneously.
Provided that the fundamental desideratum of intergenerational transmission is
kept in mind, this seems sensible since in so difficult an endeavour as language
revitalisation actions may well need to be taken simultaneously, in a mutually reinforcing
manner. It is difficult to disagree, then, with Hornberger and King’s (2001)
view that the GIDS stages are best seen as offering a useful heuristic for identifying
priorities and links rather than as a detailed programme of action.
Moving on, we come to what is perhaps the GIDS framework’s most notable
omission – its inattention to the economic basis for language revival. One of the
reasons for language shift in the first place is parents’ perception that the threatened
language no longer has sufficient labour market value to be worthwhile transmitting.
It follows that revitalisation efforts need to strengthen the economic incentives
for retaining the language – alongside cultural and integrative incentives. As Baker
(2002: 231) says:
The more a minority language can be tied in with employment, promotion in
employment, and increasing affluence, the greater the perceived value of that
language.
More than individual choices are involved, however. Languages exist in, and are
sustained by, communities of speakers, and to the extent that communities and their
social networks are affected by socio-economic and employment changes, so too is
the vitality of its language. A good example might be the Gaeltacht areas of Ireland,
whose small farm economy – up to the 1950s – supported localised social networks
favourable to the maintenance of Irish (O’Riagain 2001: 208). Thereafter, however,
socio-economic changes within the communities – a growth of non-agricultural
employment opportunities, increased commuting to towns, changing recreational
patterns – all contributed to a fundamental redrawing of social networks, which, in
turn, impacted adversely on Irish maintenance.
The implications for language revitalisation planning seem clear: if a community’s
language use patterns have a socio-economic base, then revitalisation efforts need
to tie in with other areas of social and economic policy whose focus may not be
language but nevertheless affect it. Indeed, they cannot be kept separate, even from,