Written evidence submitted by the
Centre for Welsh Politics and Society, Aberystwyth University
Summary
This submission has been prepared by the Centre for Welsh Politics and Society, Aberystwyth University. It responds to the questions as follows:
Question 1: We highlight demographic, sociolinguistic, political-institutional, economic, psychological and linguistic factors as key determinants of whether minority languages thrive. We
also highlight the implications of radical social change associated with globalisation for regional and minority languages and the need to take account of these changes in efforts to promote language revitalisation.
Ouestion 2: In order to promote learning lessons on achieving widespread fluency in both a majority and indigenous minority language, we draw attention to examples of good practice and potential learning at a local level in Wales and to Wales-wide reflections. We also point to Catalonia and the Basque country as key examples for lesson learning in other cases and point to the Republic of Ireland as a case of lessons in what not do to if seeking to achieve widespread fluency and use of a minority language.
Question 3: We argue that there is no specific set of criteria that can objectively be used to judge whether a minority language should recieve official status and point to ways in which many of these discussions are highly contextual.
We discuss issues regarding the significance and impact of granting official status to a minority language and draw on the case of the Welsh language to illustrate some of these points.
Question 4: We make a number of points regarding the responsibility of the UK Government to implement its existing responsibilities and duties in relation to supporting and developing indigenous minority languages and in respecting the respective constitutional arrangements and the delineation of powers between the central and devolved levels of government. We point to examples of reserved powers where the UK government could better recognise devolved interests in policy areas that have significant implications for language revitalisation and putting arrangements in place to give appropriate consideration to minority languages in UK policies and legislation. We also make two points regarding further steps that the UK Government could take to more proactively express its commitment to ensuring that the minority languages thrive and to supporting efforts that promote their revitalisation.
Introduction to the organisation
The Centre for Welsh Politics and Society is an interdisciplinary research centre at Aberystwyth University aimed at developing our understanding of contemporary politics and society in Wales in the context of an inter-connected world, supporting and delivering world-class research in the social sciences, and contributing to public knowledge and debates and policy development in Wales.
This evidence has been coordinated by the Centre and reflects our research and expertise in relation to language policy and planning in Wales and other cases of regional and minority languages in Europe and beyond. Given our interdisciplinary approach to language policy research, it draws on contributions from academics from four departments within the University and is based on the deliberations of a seminar held to discuss the draft strategy in February 2023. This submission has been written by Dr Elin Royles with contributions from Dr Ben Ò Ceallaigh, Dr Catrin Wyn Edwards, Professor Rhys Jones, Professor Emyr Lewis and Dr Huw Lewis.
In addition to the points presented in this evidence, we would be happy to present oral evidence or submit supplementary evidence on specific aspects at the committee's request. The evidence responds to the consultation questions.
Responses to the Inquiry questions
1. What are the key factors determining whether an indigenous minority language thrives? / Beth yw'r ffactorau allweddol sy'n pennu a yw iaith leiafrifol frodorol yn ffynnu?
1.1 The most prominent factors that are key determinants of whether minority languages thrive are demographic, sociolinguistic, political-institutional, economic, psychological and linguistic factors (Lewis and Royles, 2018).
1.2. Demographic factors relate to the numbers that speak a language, their distribution throughout the population and across generations.
Consequently, the extent to which a minority language thrives is impacted by the absolute number of speakers, as well as the number of speakers as a proportion of the population in particular areas. A language thrives also when the profile of speakers is healthily dispersed across all age groups. Similarly, demographic shifts (in- and out-migration, birth and deaths rates) may also affect a minority language's sustainability and growth.
It is also important to recognise the significance of territorial areas with a high density of language speakers (Jones and Lewis, 2019). Such areas can enable greater opportunities for language use in informal, social domains on a daily basis. The language can be the language on the street where you can take it for granted that you can start a conversation in the minority language.
1.3 Sociolinguistic factors are associated with language use in a range of social domains, such as the family home, education system, workplace and the media.
Consequently, a minority language thrives when there is strong intergenerational language transmission within the family home. It is also increasingly important that the statutory educational system provides immersion model teaching in the minority language for pupils who do not learn the langauge through inter-generational transmission. Providing ample opportunities for adults to learn the language beyond the statutory education system is key. The workplace can also serve as an important location for ensuring the continuation of language practices beyond the statutory education system and into adulthood. Alongside this, there is extensive recognition of the key role played by media and technology in ensuring that minority languages thrive.
1.4 Political-institutional factors relate to the level of recognition and support provided to a minority language by government and by other prominent public and private institutions.
This factor encompasses whether or not a language has official legal status, and whether there is a legislative basis supporting language promotion and citizen use of a minority language in areas such as education and the legal system.
From a public policy perspective, language policy can be understood as any intervention by government aimed at influencing the nature of a society's linguistic environment, and to steer the language practices of individuals. Such interventions may be initiated by state, regional, or local levels of governments. Languages are more likely to thrive if efforts at each level of government recognise their respective contribution to language revitalisation and if their actions and initiatives mutually support one another. Moreover, language promotion policies and strategies are more likely to enable languages to thrive if they are sufficiently supported by significant and long-term financial investment to secure their implementation.
Similarly, language policies do not exist in isolation. It is important to recognise the value of mainstreaming language policy considerations into other policy areas given their impact on minority languages. Consequently, minority languages are more likely to thrive if consideration of the language is integrated into other policies areas such as health, planning, and economic development. Adopting a more coherent and robust approach to a minority language is also more cost effective than in cases where the language is considered retrospectively. One such example would be incorporating consideration of minority languages with sustainable development (Jones et al, unpublished).
Ultimately, for minority languages to thrive it is extremely important that there is political will and commitment at different levels of government to underpin language initiatives. Consensus across political parties and general support within society regarding the need to invest in language measures (whether for socio-economic, cultural reasons) is also key.
1.5 Economic factors are associated with the professional status and the material wealth of language speakers and /or the need for a minority language to possess a measure of economic value through its use as a language of work.
1.6 Psychological factors are associated with the attitudes of different individuals and communities towards the language and the status or prestige attributed to it. Such discourses and attitudes influence appreciation of the value of minority languages and can have a significant impact on language use and hence the extent to which a language thrives. Amongst the diverse factors that can impact upon perceptions of language status and prestige are whether it has legal official status and the extent to which it has kudos amongst young people owing to its projection in the media and other cultural formats, including on social media.
1.7 Linguistic factors relate to the condition of the language itself, in particular its degree of standardisation, graphitisation and moderation.
1.8 Efforts to promote regional and minority languages in the last decades have developed against a backdrop of radical social change and initiatives to support minority languages must be developed and implemented with this shift in mind. Societies have become increasingly individualistic, diverse and mobile. Populations have become more multi-ethnic and multicultural as a result of the increased prevalence of international migration. There has been an overhaul in traditional family structures and household patterns, alongside an increasing feminisation of the labour market with implications for patterns of early socialisation among children. Moreover, spatial changes and technological advances have led to increased personal mobility as people's lives span wider geographic areas. Such changes have also affected the nature of civil society leading to declining engagement in civic life in parallel to leading to more networked forms of social interaction, including as a result of technology (Jones 2021). Economies are increasingly interconnected, and their governance structures increasingly complex.
Consequently, many of the factors traditionally emphasised as key determinants of a language's level of vitality - the family, local community, the economy and state institutions and provision of public services - have been impacted by patterns of social change (Lewis and Royles, 2018; see also Lewis and McLeod, 2021). For minority languages to thrive, policy-makers need to take account of these changes, including in the following ways:
-Ensure sufficient provision and investment in pre-school and after-school childcare provision in the minority language as these providers become an integral part of family life arrangements.
- Develop policies responsive to migration, including international migration, to actively promote learning a minority language to migrants and assist their linguistic integration via the statutory and non-statutory education system (Edwards, 2020).
-Responding to the increased salience of online social networking in our daily lives, i.e. policies need to facilitate language use in online and digital media platforms for all age groups to normalise the minority languages in such social, everyday life contexts.
- Give greater consideration to the link between employment opportunities, the local economy and well-being in areas of high density of minority language speakers in order to ensure that the language continues to thrive in these areas.
- Evaluate the significant impact that state reforms and cuts in public funding in general have had on the delivery of public services such as youth clubs, public transport and health service. Such services are not directly related to a minority language but given their importance in helping society to thrive, impact on minority languages (Ó Ceallaigh, 2023). Such cuts have a particular impact on more rural areas that are often areas with a high density of language speakers, important to minority languages thriving.
1.9 A significant question is how to measure whether or not a minority language is thriving. How can we evaluate the vitality of a minority language? What are the core criteria to assess whether one of these languages are thriving or experiencing erosion? What is best practice in terms of mechanisms for measuring degree of vitality? To what extent is it helpful to develop a theory of change for policies that are trying to promote minority languages in order for them to thrive? (see Royles et al. 2019).
1.10 More broadly, it is important to have clear processes in place for robust evaluation and learning of initiatives promoting minority languages to identify what can be established as good practice and how learning shared across initiatives. This applies to processes of sharing best practice across levels of governance (local, regional, national) and sectors (e.g., health, education, business). Greater attention is currently being given in Wales to the importance of purposeful planning of different interventions and strategies, and the potential for theory of change approaches as a basis for evaluating minority language promotion interventions. Such approaches should enable identifying more concretely what works in evaluation processes in order to allow recognising where initiatives are not as appropriate, e.g. as a result of social transformations, and to help identify new ways of working.
2) What lessons can be learned from countries whose populations achieve widespread fluency in both a majority and indigenous minority language? / Pa wersi y gellir eu dysgu gan wledydd y mae eu poblogaethau'n sicrhau rhuglder eang mewn iaith fwyafrifol a iaith leiafrifol frodorol?
2.1 Language revitalisation efforts are increasingly common in different contexts across the world, particularly regional or minority languages in various sub-state nations in the context of a majority language. Before examining cases of good practice in achieving widespread fluency beyond the UK, we make key points regarding the Welsh language, thus reflecting the tendency in places such as Scotland and Brittany to look to Wales for guidance on good practice.
2.2. First, we argue that examining good practice and learning potential at a local level is valuable. In particular Cyngor Sir Gwynedd is an example of a pioneering local government that has operated internally through the medium of Welsh as the language of administration and policy-making since the 1970s. The political agency of senior officers with a clear vision of the council’s potential to facilitate linguistic change has been key (Royles and Lewis, 2019). Such practices have had a significant influence on language practices in other workplaces in both public bodies and the private sector and on the language choices of employees beyond the workplace in the area. The council has also advanced language promotion policies in a range of domains.
Welsh local governments policy initiatives have provided a strong basis for widespread fluency, notably in terms of Welsh medium education. Establishing an education system emphasising the immersion model has been particularly important. For example, the educational interventions adopted by Cyngor Sir Gwynedd to respond to migration in the 1970s, such as the language immersion centres, continue to play an important role in creating new Welsh language speakers and sustaining the Welsh language.
These interventions require consistent and long-term funding to ensure sufficient provision at both primary and secondary school levels (Edwards, 2014). The benefits of an immersion model and systematic planning and investment are witnessed beyond the statutory education system, and provide a strong basis for solid levels of minority language use in employment and in workplaces.
2.3 In terms of Wales-wide reflections on what works in terms of achieving widespread fluency highlights the following::
Where you learn the language matters: Welsh Language Use surveys are based on individual self-perceptions but nevertheless suggest that learning a minority language in the home via intergenerational transmission is more likely to lead to people perceiving themselves as more fluent. There is also evidence of an association between perception of fluency and how likely people are to use the language. The home and broader societal setting also matter in terms of the greater the daily opportunities to use the language, the more fluent a speaker is likely to be.
Adult education system is working well: Whilst there isn't an evaluation of the current arrangements coordinated by the National Centre for Learning Welsh, our deliberations suggest that the arrangements are working extremely well. Strengths include courses being offered at different times of the day, courses being linked to workplaces, provision for different levels of ability, good progression from one level to the next, ample opportunities to practice Welsh socially outside classes, and reasonably priced lessons. It was considered to be a very strong model of how to deliver minority language teaching to adults where extensive funding is in place to support effective delivery.
Extensive social opportunities to speak the language are important: Widespread fluency is also contingent not only on opportunities to learn the language but on social opportunities to use the language beyond the classroom. Consequently, amongst children and young people for instance, it is vital that a minority language is not solely associated with school and formal learning and that there are sufficient opportunities organised to use the minority language in their daily lives such as through play, sports, cultural and leisure activities (Jones et al, 2022). The need for extensive social opportunities to ensure widespread fluency applies to other age groups as well.
Workplaces matter: The workplace is is a crucial site for providing opportunities to use the language as part of different sectors, occupations and careers. Opportunities and requirements to utilise the language in employment can provide a key building block in developing higher levels of fluency in a language. Workplaces also matter in terms of affecting language use and perceptions of the status and prestige afforded to a minority language, contribute to greater fluency, and posessing the potential to lead to more extensive use of the language outside the workplace (see 1.4).
2.4 In terms of learning lessons from cases whose populations achieve widespread fluency in both a majority and an indigenous minority language, other key examples are Catalonia and the Basque country. We would highlight the following points in relation to these cases:
One significant factor is the way in which these cases have secured widespread learning of the minority language. In both cases, the education system has played a critical role, alongside adult learning initiatives. Another key feature for instance in the Basque case is a consistency in the implementation of the educational policy over the decades that has provided a solid basis for language acquisition and consequently for language use. The cases have also been responsive and adapted educational initiatives to intra-state migration and international migration. In the Catalan case, learning Catalan is perceived as a way of ensuring social equality and national cohesion, and the education system is the main vector in which to ensure this. Efforts in the statutory and non-statutory education system are bolstered by political will and consensus in the region on the importance of the Catalan language and Catalan-medium education along with continuous collaboration between political and social actors across sectors and levels of government.
However, widespread fluency depends on more than language learning. It is influenced by the status and prestige of the language, including wide-ranging initiatives in relation to the media and online social media and in employment. With regards to employment, in both cases for instance, the civil service are required to sit language exams and pass qualifications to ensure their proficiency in the language. Moreover, there are strong examples of ensuring opportunities to socialise in the minority language in various types of activities. Projects like BIKEE by the provincial council of Bizkaia and another project by led by Soziolinguistica Klusterra have provided a framework for Basque sports societies to enhance their usage of the minority language both as a language of training and competing and also for internal administration.
Whilst both cases face their own particular challenges, ensuring widespread fluency is no accident. Rather, it is associated with systematic and consistent language planning, buttressed for instance in the Catalan case by a Catalan Government language unit leading on language revitalisation providing a clear direction to initiatives in that case. Moreover, in both cases, there has been a significant level of political support for their minority languages, a strong degree of political consensus across the main political parties in favour of promoting the languages, underpinned by discourses promoting ownership of the language and committing significant levels of financial investment in the minority languages over long time periods.
2.5 If the aim is widespread fluency of a minority language our discussion also pointed to the Republic of Ireland as a case for lesson learning of what to avoid doing and the risks in reducing institutional support for language revitalisation efforts. Key messages include:
-Regardless of the educational model, there is a risk in treating a minority language as a school subject that is solely focused on minority language acquisition rather than use. Focussing purely or mainly on number of speakers does not lead to widespread fluency as evidenced in the Irish case where, despite high proportions being able to speak the language according to census results, this is not reflected in language use and the achievement of widespread fluency.
- The experience of Údarás na Gaeltachta in Ireland is illustrative in underlining the importance of initiatives to promote employment in rural areas of high density of minority language speakers and the difficulties in doing so and the importance of responding with sensitivity to the vulnerability of minority languages in such circumstances. This affects the capacity of the area to provide sustainable livelihoods in a context that can support the development of widespread fluency.
-It also points to the significant detriment that can arise when governments put in place language promotion strategies but do not support them with sufficient public spending. With regards to two important language policies, the 20-Year Irish language strategy for 2010-2030 and the Gaeltacht Act 2012, the former was viewed as being left unimplemented and ignored, and the Irish government refused to engage with proposed amendments to the latter. Instead, the Republic of Ireland is an example of the negative impact of government cuts in support for a minority language as a result of significant public funding cuts, particularly to the capital budget for the Gaeltacht after 2008. Equally, this point underlines the significance of political commitment by governing parties in support of minority languages. Amongst the main explanations for the reduction in state support are negative political attitudes towards the Irish language and the economic and public funding conditions created by the age of austerity (Ó Ceallaigh, 2023).
3.0 What should be the criteria for judging whether a minority language should receive official status? / Beth ddylai’r meini prawf fod ar gyfer barnu a ddylai iaith leiafrifol dderbyn statws swyddogol?
3.1 As a general principle, there is no specific set of criteria that can objectively be utilised to arrive at a judgement as to whether or not a language should be given official status. Relatedly, theoretically speaking, there is little established basis for arguing that a language should not be attributed official status. Indeed, considering the corresponding question of conditions or criteria to inform judging that a minority language should not receive official status may also be instructive. In such an exercise, factors such as little demand for awarding official status would evidently be a key consideration. The exercise would also suggest that not all languages would be granted this status.
Overall, reflecting on cases where consideration has been given to whether or not a minority language should be afforded official status illustrates that arguments making these demands and deliberation on the issue are often highly contextual. The right of a minority language to receive official status tends to be associated with a combination of inter-related factors including:
- the right of minority language speakers to have their language recognised;
-traditionally, a historical association between a language and a particular territory/nation and with historical minorities has been a key argument. It sets the language apart from languages that have been commonly spoken more recently. This is the approach adopted by the Council of Europe in their Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.
-bottom-up / grassroots demands and volition for a language to be granted official status.
Reflecting on the discussion above, whilst a factor such as the historical linkage between a language and a specific territory/nation is a key consideration, it is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for granting official status. Consequently, this emphasises that consideration needs to be given to an inter-related set of contextual factors.
3.2 Regarding current understandings of good practice in seeking to promote minority or regional languages, it is also important to reflect on the relative significance of granting official status. Whereas the symbolism of granting official status can be particularly powerful in some cases, the significance can be more limited in many cases. For instance, in the EU context there have been instances where whether or not a language had official status has broader ramifications, i.e. being eligible for some sources of funding. Overall, the implications of attributing a language official status and the implications of this status can vary.
Consequently, it is also important to reflect on the significance and impact of granting official status to a regional or minority language. In many respects, official status is one dimension as part of a broader package of legislative, policy and financial measures to address the challenges faced by a minority language and to promote its revitalisation. Consequently, there is a risk in arguing that granting official status will in and of itself resolve the challenges facing a regional or minority language. That being said, this should not be seen as a pretext for refusing to grant such a status or playing down its value. Minority languages and thus their speakers have a history of being stigmatised precisely because they lack official recognition, and formally recognising their official status can be seen as an essential component in combatting that stigma and its effects.
In addition, deeper questions need to be asked about the nature of the official status being granted to a language in an individual case. For instance, what type of language rights does the status afford to the speakers of that language? Similarly, does granting official status establish a precedence or affirm a broader framework of measures, legislation and interventions to support a minority language?
3.3 The case of the Welsh language illustrates these points. The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure (2011) contains a series of significant provisions, both of a symbolic and procedural nature (Lewis and Royles, 2022). In contrast to earlier language legislation, the 2011 Measure includes a section confirming Welsh as an official language in Wales. Despite this significant development in according the language official status in Wales for the first time, as originally drafted, this status was dependent on and confined to public service provisions that were already in existence prior to the Welsh language gaining official status via other legislative provisions as well as new express provisions included in the Measure itself. While the Measure as passed still refers to these provisions, it contains wording which makes clear that this is without prejudice to the generality of the grant of official status to Welsh.
At the same time, despite the declared intention to introduce legislation seeking to accord official status to the Welsh language and establish a series of legal language rights, the nature of the UK’s legal and constitutional order meant that realising such objectives proved to be challenging and contentious. This emanates from the fact that it is not the norm within common law jurisdictions for legislation to include explicit declaratory statements such as the official status of a language and that legislation has tended to shy away from declaring individual rights as such. Ultimately, while the legislation included such a provision, the process of settling on a wording acceptable to prominent language activists and broadly consistent with the UK’s common law tradition proved challenging and controversial. While as explained above the declaration of official status for Welsh is at large, the Measure does not specify a list of explicit legal language rights (Lewis and Royles, in press).
Despite the scepticism of some common law traditionalists about the value of the general declaration of official status for Welsh, it has not been without legal consequences. It has been cited in public law cases where use of or the fortunes of the Welsh language have been relevant factors and can be said to have set a new baseline of expectations for public bodies in the exercise of their functions in Wales.
4) What should be the role of the UK Government in supporting and developing indigenous minority languages? / Beth ddylai rôl Llywodraeth y DU fod o ran cefnogi a datblygu ieithoedd lleiafrifol brodorol?
Our discussion came to the following conclusions:
4.1 The UK Government should focus on implementing its existing responsibilities and duties in relation to supporting and developing indigenous minority languages. For instance, it should comply with its commitments in the context of the Council of Europe's Charter on Regional or Minority Languages. In terms of its reporting on its fulfilment of the Charter to the Council of Europe, its early record was exemplary. Most of the undertakings under the Charter relate to matters which are within the devolved competence of the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the delegation to those administrations of responsibility to draft relevant sections of the reports proved valuable.
With the suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive, however, that led to a total failure to report in respect of the Irish and Ulster Scots languages, and so led to the UK Government being in breach of its obligation under international law to report. It is suggested that the UK Government should ensure that it has the information and expertise which would enable it to fill that gap through the Northern Ireland Office if necessary, in future.
There has also been an unfortunate and unexplained lengthy delay in appointing a member to COMEX, the monitoring body under the Charter. Conversely, it is good to see that the UK Government has taken positive action to start the process of addressing the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers by securing the successful passage through Parliament of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. The next step is to bring the Act into force completely.
4.2 The respective role of the UK Government in supporting and developing indigenous minority languages varies across the UK depending on the political context of each language. For instance, for minority languages in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, responsibility is devolved to regional government. As the discussion above indicates, our research reinforces findings elsewhere that sub-state institutional arrangements for language policy governance can be central to proactive language revitalisation. Regional government also creates an institutional focal point for language activism and advocacy in favour of distinctive approaches to language policy. Under point 1.4 above, we also highlighted the importance of mainstreaming considerations of a minority language within other policy considerations thus emphasising the importance of co-ordination across the suite of policies devolved to the sub-state level.
On this basis, in the cases of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland it is important that the UK Government respects the respective constitutional arrangements and the delineation of powers between the central and devolved levels of government.
In cases where there is no regional level of government responsible for minority languages, the UK Government has greater responsibility in supporting and developing indigenous minority languages. There is potential to consider what additional arrangements could be put in place to support their promotion and revitalisation.
4.3 In terms of the 'jagged edge' of devolved and non-devolved powers, there are a number of areas reserved to UK central government where it can reflect upon and potentially strengthen its role in supporting and developing indigenous minority languages. The points here focus on the Welsh case.
Broadcasting is not devolved and thus responsibility for S4C, the only Welsh language television channel, remains with the UK Government, particularly the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. The Public Bodies Act 2011 included provisions that radically reformed the funding arrangements for S4C. First, it removed the automatic link between S4C’s grant funding and annual changes in the Retail Price Index. Second, it allowed S4C funding to be provided directly by the UK Government, or for government to enter into an arrangement with another body, as eventually happened with the BBC assuming responsibility for providing the majority of S4C’s annual funding from the general UK TV license fee.
The changes in S4C’s funding arrangements brought forward through the Public Bodies Act 2011 had clear implications for policy objectives pursued at the devolved level, to maintain and promote the Welsh language. Nevertheless, the process leading to adopting the legislation reveals only fairly limited opportunities for either the Welsh Government, the National Assembly or other Welsh elected representatives to exert influence. In particular, formal bilateral mechanisms for the devolved institutions to influence the development of those clauses relating to S4C appear to have been absent. This was in line with the UK Government’s insistence on upholding ‘the important principle that broadcasting is a reserved matter’ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2011: 9). This pays little heed to the way in which media and broadcasting plays a central role in ensuring that minority languages thrive (Question 1), reflecting the Welsh Government's consistent emphasis on S4C as an important element in its national strategy for promoting the Welsh language, due to its ability to allow ‘the language to be part of everyday life’.
Whilst there may be greater recognition within the UK Government of the importance of S4C to language revitalisation since this particular episode, this example:
i) raises questions regarding the commitment of the UK Government to Welsh language broadcasting given the radical changes introduced to its funding base with limited consultation.
ii) points to a lack of recognition of devolved interests in broadcasting that has such significant implications for language revitalisation.
4.4 This example indicates a broader trend within UK Government departments in a lack of appropriate arrangements to ensure that the Welsh language is given appropriate consideration in the context of legislation and implementing policy that affect Wales. Indeed, in 2009, the Welsh Language Board went so far as to suggest that Whitehall government departments had not complied with the commitment to operate in line with the principles of the Welsh Language Act 1993, resulting in ‘numerous occasions where lack of consideration of the Welsh language by Whitehall departments has hindered the use of Welsh by members of the public in Wales.’ (House of Commons, 2009)
We are currently undertaking research to understand the type of cases that have arisen where Whitehall departments fail to take the needs of Welsh speakers into consideration, and whether sufficiently robust arrangements are in place led by the Wales Office within the UK Government, to raise the need to take the Welsh language into account (Royles and Lewis, unpublished paper).
4.5 Our discussions also raised concerns regarding the implications of Brexit for regional and minority languages in the UK. Again, we exemplify our points here in relation to the Welsh case, but our findings are relevant to other cases too.
4.5.1 A number of EU funding sources that were not directly related to minority languages, for instance EU community development and rural development funds, had become a significant funding source for organisations involved in language promotion such as the Mentrau Iaith for language promotion purposes. The lack of equivalent funds post-Brexit is having an impact on their activities.
4.5.2 With regards to UK Government economic prosperity initiatives, attention needs to be given to investment in the context of the Common Prosperity Fund. As this is Fund is administered by the United Kingdom Government - with no input from the Welsh Government - it is necessary to ensure that the implications of local investment for the Welsh language are not underestimated or ignored. There does not seem to be any consideration within the current arrangements to the importance of promoting minority languages or awareness of the potential repercussions of funding decisions on the Welsh language.
Consequently, in the absence of clear mechanisms to take the Welsh language into consideration, there are clear risks that the Welsh language needs are not integrated into projects being supported. Similarly, the type of investments made could devalue the economic development needs of the more western areas of North Wales and areas of South West Wales with their higher percentages of Welsh language speakers with negative implications for the Welsh language.
4.6 In addition to points made above pertaining to the current arrangements, we would like to make two points regarding possible future arrangements.
4.6.1 In cases such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland where the majority of policies in relation to the minority language are devolved to the sub-state level, the UK Government's main responsibility is to respect the devolution arrangements and to deliver funding via the Barnett Formula to enable regional governments to work to enable the respective languages to thrive. Within the current population-based formula, there is no consideration of the additional costs associated with supporting a minority language. If the UK Government wishes to strongly commit to supporting and developing indigenous minority languages, it could increase the funding to sub-state governments via the Barnett formula to recognise the additional costs.
4.6.2 Similarly, if the UK Government is serious about supporting and developing indigenous minority languages in the UK, it could consider devolving more powers to regional governments in the cases of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to enable them to be more coherent in their respective efforts in promoting minority languages and have a broader base in which to mainstream consideration of minority languages into policy agendas.
4.6.3 The Welsh perspective highlights the ways in which UK Governments have been historically supportive of the Welsh language, e.g. establishing S4C as a Welsh language TV channel and the 1993 Welsh Language Act. In many respects, there has been more proactive support for the Welsh language than in the case of other regional and minority languages in the UK.
In order to support and develop indigenous minority languages in the UK, the UK Government should consider making public statements that its policy ambition is for the languages to thrive and that it is committed to supporting efforts that promote their revitalisation. This type of statement does not currently exist and it can be extremely important for the status and prestige of minority languages. This could be particularly significant for the smallest minority languages of the UK.
In this context, it is suggested that the UK Government should consider in particular what measures it might take to comply with Article 7(3) of the European Charter for regional and Minority Languages which stipulates:
The Parties undertake to promote, by appropriate measures, mutual understanding between all the linguistic groups of the country and in particular the inclusion of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to regional or minority languages among the objectives of education and training provided within their countries and encouragement of the mass media to pursue the same objective.
A policy aimed at “the inclusion of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to regional or minority languages” in education in England, for example, would do much to alleviate the current lack of knowledge and understanding.
While it is beyond the scope of this inquiry, it is suggested that such a policy in relation to all community languages (not only those falling within the Charter definition of regional and minority languages) in all nations of the UK could be extremely beneficial in promoting a greater understanding of and tolerance for linguistic diversity.
References
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2011. Government Response to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s Report on S4C: Fifth Report of Session 2010-12. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77645/Govt_response_to_WAC_report_on_S4C.pdf
(Accessed: 20 January 2022).
Edwards, C. W. (2015). 'Language-in-education policies, immigration and social cohesion in Catalonia: the case of Vic' International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 19, 5, p. 530-545.
Edwards, C.W. (2020), 'Seduir, seduce, més que dir que han de fer català": Astudiaeth o bolisïau iaith mewn addysg, integreiddio a mewnfudo rhyngwladol yng Nghatalwnia' Gwerddon, 31, 83-111. [31]. http://www.gwerddon.cymru/en/editions/issue31/article4/
House of Commons. 2009. Written evidence from the Welsh Language Board, House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee, Wales and Whitehall inquiry
Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmwelaf/246/246we17.htm
(Accessed: 20 January 2022).
Jones, R. (2021) 'The Geography of Minority Language Use: From Community to Network' in Lewis, H., McLeod, W. (eds) Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation (London: Palgrave).
Jones, R., Lewis, H. (2019) New Geographies of Language: Language, Culture and Politics in Wales (London: Palgrave)
Jones, R., Royles, E., O’Hanlon, F., Paterson, L. (2022) ‘The contemporary threat to minority languages and cultures: civil society, young people and Celtic language use in Scotland and Wales’ yn P. Chaney a I Rees Jones (gol.) Civil Society in and Age of Uncertainty: Institutions, Governance and Existential Challenges (Bristol: Policy Press).
Jones et al (unpublished) Minority languages and cultures, and sustainable development: the cases of the Basque Autonomous Community and Wales’ Draft article yet to be published
Lewis, H., McLeod, W. (eds) (2021) Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation (London: Palgrave).
Lewis, H. & Royles, E. (2018). ‘Language Revitalization and Social Transformation: Evaluating the Language Policy Frameworks of Sub-state Governments in Wales and Scotland’, Policy and Politics, 46, 3, 503-529.
Lewis, H., Royles, E., (2022). ‘Towards a Million Welsh Speakers? Welsh Language Policy Post-devolution’, in J. Williams, A. Eirug (eds) The Impact of Devolution in Wales (UWP).
Lewis, H., Royles, E., (in press). ‘State Tradition and Language Revitalisation in Wales’ in Albaugh, E. (ed.) States of Language Policy: Theorizing Continuity and Change (Cambridge University Press).
Ó Ceallaigh, B. (2023) Neo Liberalism and Language Shift: Lessons from the Republic of Ireland post-2008 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter) ar gael o: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110768909/pdf.
Royles, E. & Lewis, H. (2019). ‘Language Policy in Multi-level Systems: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21, 4, 709-727.
Royles, E. & Lewis, H. (unpublished paper) 'The Limits of Shared Rule? Language
Policy in a Devolved Wales'
Royles, E., O’Hanlon, F., Jones, R. (2019). Evaluation, Impact and Outcomes in working with children and young people in regional and minority language revitalization efforts.