New speakers and language ideology: some observations and suggestions

New speakers and language ideology: some observations and suggestions Christopher Lewin University of Edinburgh AHRC Centre for Doctoral Training in the Celtic Languages Celtic Sociolinguistics Symposium 2018 NUI Galway Abstract Proponents of the ‘new speaker’ concept have heralded a shift away from language learning ideologies that focus on emulation of native-speaker models, which they describe as ‘essentialism’ (O’Rourke and Pujolar 2013; O’Rourke and Walsh 2015), or ‘native authenticism’ (Hornsby and Quentel 2013). These ideologies are presented as potentially harmful and counter-productive both to native speakers (by romanticizing and museifying them) and to second-language learners and speakers (by stigmatizing hybridized new speaker varieties and focusing on language deficits rather than skills). It is claimed by new speaker scholars that more ‘social constructionist’ ideologies are gaining ground among some L2 speaker communities, and that these offer a path away from more essentialist models. However, as these scholars also acknowledge, ‘essentialist’ deference to native-speaker models remains a prominent strand in the ideologies of new speakers. Focusing on the Celtic languages, this paper will argue that the case against ‘essentialist’ ideologies may be reductive and overstated, and that new speaker scholars have not adequately considered how a shift away from native-speaker models might play out in practice, e.g. in corpus planning and pedagogy. ‘Essentialist’ or ‘native authenticist’ ideologies may potentially have benefits in language learning, identity construction, and in some cases are clearly closely linked to deeplyheld motivations for acquiring the second language. ‘Native authenticists’ are often among the most committed language activists and may play an outsized role in development of resources and networks. Scholars should pay more attention to ways in which ideological clarification might take place, bringing actors with differing language ideologies and backgrounds together constructively. 1. Introduction Proponents of the ‘new speaker’ discourse have heralded a shift away from language ideologies that focus on emulation of native-speaker models, which they describe as ‘essentialism’ (O’Rourke and Pujolar 2013; O’Rourke and Walsh 2015), or ‘native authenticism’ (Hornsby and Quentel 2013). These ideologies are presented as potentially harmful and counterproductive both to native speakers (by romanticizing and museifying them) and to secondlanguage learners and speakers (by stigmatizing hybridized new speaker varieties and focusing on language deficits rather than skills). 1 2. ‘Essentialism’ and ‘social constructionism’ in Irish In O’Rourke and Walsh’s (2015: 66) analysis of the experiences of ‘new speakers’ of Irish, a spectrum of ideologies is identified ranging from ‘essentialism’ to ‘social constructionism’: By linguistic essentialism, we mean the idea of language as fixed and bounded, as a code rather than practice and as naturally given or taken for granted. This is contrasted with social constructionism which emphasises “the idea that society is actively and creatively produced by human beings” and that “the world [is] made or invented – rather than merely given or taken for granted” (Marshall 1998: 609; see also Giddens 2001: 98). (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015: 66) This ideological spectrum is illustrated by an analysis of five ‘new speakers’, drawn from a corpus of narrative interviews with 54 participants (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015: 68). At opposing ends of the spectrum are Liam, who ‘shows an essentialist discourse in which the ideal of the Gaeltacht native speaker comes across very strongly’ (ibid.: 69) and Sharon, who ‘moves further along the continuum towards a social constructionist discourse’ and ‘rejected outright the traditional ideology associated with the Gaeltacht and the native speaker and positioned herself as a part of a new group of speakers who were liberal, urban and modernising’ (ibid.: 76–77). It is clear that the authors’ sympathies lie much more with Sharon than Liam. Sharon’s views—despite being problematic, as we shall see—are presented quite neutrally, whereas a lengthy paragraph is spent accusing Liam of an array of ideological offences, including ‘look[ing] to the past for linguistic purity and authenticity’, ‘idealisation of the past’, ‘fail[ing] to recognise the changing linguistic practices that continue to take place amongst Gaeltacht speakers and within their communities’, ‘clear reification of the Gaeltacht’, ‘nostalgia for the past and a mythification of the native speaker’, ‘preservationist rhetoric’, ‘an exoticising and romanticising view of local people locked in time’, ‘the exoticising strain in preservationist discourse’ and ‘a strongly essentialist ideology and a desire for authenticity wishing to keep the language free from English influences’ (ibid.: 69). It is claimed that the ‘the exoticising rhetoric of the Gaeltacht and its speakers’ is something which Gaeltacht communities have frequently rejected (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015: 69). The ‘essentialist’ rhetoric of individuals such as Liam are therefore presented as being detrimental to Gaeltacht communities – which may be justifed criticism, at least to an extent. However, Sharon’s blatant ‘mocking’ and stereotyping of Gaeltacht speakers is not condemned or problematized in any way: [Sharon’s] motivation for sticking to her English name (as opposed to adopting its Irish equivalent) is explained when she refers mockingly to an archetypal Gaeltacht figure […], “Seáinín Ó Sé”. […] Sharon does not want to be “Seáinín Ó Sé” and positions herself as a modern Irish speaker who has broken with the past, extending the imagery to the extreme opposite of someone with pink hair […] 2 ‘[…]I felt I was trying in a way em illustrate to people that [I am] not Seáinín Ó Sé who speaks Irish you know that there are other people who speak Irish people who are linked to technology people who have pink hair you know people who aren’t as my husband says curly teeth and beards / do you know what I mean like ↑ that they are // not always old lads wearing a báinín jumper who speak Irish that it is something modern linked to the city you know that urban people have Irish as well and that people who have no link to the Gaeltacht have Irish.’ (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015: 78) Although to some extent this stereotyping could be excused as Sharon’s presentation of other people’s preconceptions and prejudices, her assertion that Irish is ‘something modern linked to the city’ suggests that, to her, the Gaeltacht is not and cannot be ‘modern’, and that the urban is self-evidently better than the rural. Surely Sharon could be accused of ‘fail[ing] to recognise the changing linguistic practices [and other changes] that continue to take place amongst Gaeltacht speakers and within their communities’ and of viewing (and indeed “essentializing”) Gaeltacht communities as ‘static, traditional and immobile’, just as much as Liam? It is telling, then, that such accusations are levelled only at Liam, and not at Sharon, and it is worth noting that misplaced ‘idealisation’ is apparently considered as detrimental to Gaeltacht people as out-and-out ethnocultural stereotyping, which plays into the widespread perception of Irish-speakers and/or the Gaeltacht as backwards and old-fashioned. The dismissive and antagonistic attitudes that some ‘new speakers’ of Irish apparently feel free to have towards Gaeltacht people would be unacceptable in relation to minoritized cultural groups elsewhere—not least on the part of those seeking to adopt elements of the minoritized culture themselves. Ironically, it is likely that these attitudes are in fact underpinned by an essentialist conception of the relationship between the Irish language and the Irish nation, which would see ownership of the language lying with all the people of Ireland, with no fundamental difference between first-language Gaeltacht speakers, second-language speakers and indeed nonspeakers. Ó hIfearnáin (2014: 46) notes there this ideology which regards ‘Irish as the national language, and as a consequence all Irish people [as] shar[ing] ownership of the language’ has been a ‘central tenet of Irish language policy’ and a ‘fundamental element of national language ideology’ since the foundation of the Irish state, despite the fact, as Ó hIfearnáin demonstrates, that there is evidence that Gaeltacht Irish speakers regard themselves as a distinct cultural minority. Thus the experiences and material needs of Gaeltacht communities are erased in the name of essentialist and largely symbolic national language policy goals. Moreover, by being constructed as members of the same ethnic or cultural group as the linguistic minority, ‘new speakers’ are thus absolved of any potential charge of cultural appropriation – regardless of how insensitive and cavalier some may on occasion be in their attitudes towards Gaeltacht communities. 3. Breton ‘native authenticists’ 3 We find a similar bias in the ways in which new speaker scholarship analyses ‘essentialist’ ideologies in Hornsby and Quentel’s (2013: 78) discussion of a category of Breton new speakers whom they label ‘native authenticists’. Individuals who espouse a ‘native authenticist’ ideology may have a similar background to other new speakers, but they reject the purism, Celtic borrowings, standardization and French substrate of mainstream ‘Neo-Breton’, and valorize native dialectal varieties, attempting to acquire and use these as far as possible. Hornsby and Quentel illustrate the arguments and rhetoric of the ‘native authenticists’ mainly with excerpts from an internet forum Brezhoneg ar Bobl ‘Popular Breton’. The most serious allegation against certain users on this forum is that they associate standard Neo-Breton with collaboration with the Nazis. The rest of the quotations are somewhat colourful denunciations of standard Neo-Breton. Of course, strident, disproportionate and extreme opinions are not difficult to find on internet forums, and it is unclear how representative these are of the ‘native authenticist’ tendency. It is likely one could find equally strident ideological statements from mainstream Neo-Bretonists, especially given that the rationale for the purist tendency is that traditional vernacular Breton has become corrupted by French loanwords (Le Pipec 2013: 106). However, only the ‘native authenticists’ are discredited in this way by presenting their most extreme representatives. Hornsby and Quentel (2013: 82) give the following assessment: the neo-Breton speakers consider Celtic-based coinages as necessary and desirable […] It is the native authenticists who appear to occupy the most virulently ideological ground – their “inverted” purism leads them to reject any Celtic-based neologism out of hand, making their position the most entrenched one. (Hornsby and Quentel 2013: 82) It is not made clear how the position of viewing ‘Celtic-based coinages as necessary’ is any less ‘entrenched’ or ‘virulently ideological’ than the ‘native authenticist’ position, or indeed, how one ideology can be more ideological than another. In an attempt to demonstrate that the ‘native authenticist’ ideology is more unreasonable than its rival, Hornsby and Quentel resort to a reductio ad absurdum: In our view, neologisms are a necessity if the language is to take up the intellectual challenges of the modern world […] Most of the technical and conceptual words which they [native authenticists] point out as already in existence are French loanwords: the “popular” language that they defend has, in fact, already been altered and lost its supposed “authenticity” two or three centuries ago, if we are to follow their line of argument to its logical conclusion. (Hornsby and Quentel 2013: 81) However, it is doubtful that deeply-held ideologies, which may be closely linked to motivations for being involved in language revitalization, can be argued away with “logical conclusions”. 4 In this case, both ideologies appeal to identity and authenticity (authentically local and vernacular v. authentically Breton and Celtic) and, in different ways, to aesthetic values of purity, and there are no obvious ‘logical’ criteria for choosing between them. 4. Is essentialism essential? It is unclear in any case that the concept of ‘essentialism’ is a particularly useful, as Austin and Sallabank (2014: 18) note: the essentialist label, which we feel has become an almost routine and meaningless denunciation that can obscure our preferred focus on ideologies at grass-roots level […] It is our belief that it is time to move on from both claims of essentialism and ‘mudslinging’ to examine the ideological bases of reactions to language endangerment by those most closely involved (Austin and Sallabank 2014: 18) It might be argued that any kind of target variety implies an ‘essentialist’ view of what belongs in it and what doesn’t, even if such judgments in contemporary language revitalization communities may be more fluid and gradient than some longer-established hegemonic iterations of puristic prescriptivism. Critical sociolinguists often reference the concept of ‘polynomy’, a key plank of their hopes that essentialism can be transcended (e.g. Adrey 2009: 235). However, as discussed by Sallabank (2010: 325), the originator of this concept, Corsican sociolinguist Marcellesi (2003 [1986]: 216) points out that the polynomic ideal is not as easy to implement in a language revitalisation context as in a maintenance one […] second-language learners need a model to aim at. From research in Guernsey, it appears that native speakers undergoing attrition also feel the need for norms and models. (Sallabank 2010: 325) As discussed by Jaffe (1999, 2005) and Blackwood (2011), entrenched ‘essentialist’ or hierarchical ideologies deriving fron the dominant language are deeply-rooted, and more nonhierarchical ideologies may prove difficult to establish, especially when attempts are made to apply them practically in fields such as education. Even where the language community consists entirely of new speakers, as in the revived Celtic languages Manx and Cornish, notions of legitimacy and authenticity based ultimately on native speaker norms prove tenacious: although all Manx speakers are now ‘new speakers’, there is a discourse of continuity which implies that legitimacy as a speaker still relies to a large extent on ‘native speakerism’ (Sallabank 2013: 134) 5 O’Rourke and Walsh (2015: 66) consider that ‘becoming a new speaker is […] deeply reflexive and relies on innovative and creative linguistic choices which were far less readily available to earlier generations of Irish speakers’. It is true that learning a second language as an adult permits, and entails, conscious choices which are not available to the L1 speaker in child language acquisition. However, the range of choices available to the learner is limited by the social reality of interacting with other speakers, and to a large extent, rather than liberating the ‘new speaker’ from ‘essentialism’, the process of L2 language acquisition and socialization compels, if anything, a choice between essentialisms. 5. ‘Leave your language alone’ I would argue that new speaker scholars’ disapproval of ‘essentialism’ and ‘native speakerism’ is, to some extent, not such a new idea, but rather a reiteration of the long-standing dichotomy in linguistics between descriptivism (good) and prescriptivism (bad), encapsulated in the title of Hall’s (1950) book Leave Your Language Alone. Reductive forms of ‘linguistic egalitarianism’ have been problematized within formal linguistics by writers such as McWhorter (2007: 51–2) and in sociolinguistics Cameron (2012 [1995]: 10) suggests that practices of ‘verbal hygiene’ are an inalienable part of language: if we find some particular verbal hygiene practice objectionable, the solution is not simply to denounce all prescription. If normativity is an inalienable part of using language, to abandon prescription in the broad sense is to abandon language itself. Let us be clear, though, that this is not an apologia for every kind of linguistic authoritarianism. On the contrary, it might pave the way for more effective intervention in politically important linguistic debates. Anti-prescriptivists have too often fought the battle against authoritarianism on the wrong terrain, and in consequence their challenge has been too easily brushed aside. (Cameron 2012 [1995]: 10, my emphasis) 6. Is ideological change away from ‘essentialism’ really happening (or to what extent)? O’Rourke and Walsh (2015), among others, claim that ‘social-constructionist’ or antiessentialist ideologies are gaining ground among new speakers. Given that the fields of language ideology and critical sociolinguistics are relatively young, it is possible that this perception may partially be due to the fact that we lack directly comparable ethnographic data from earlier periods. It may be that the different ideological strands and tensions in new speakers of Irish and other languages have been around in some form for as long as there have been new speakers of these languages, i.e. at least since the Gaelic Revival, as they can be seen to reflect tensions and insecurities which may be intrinsic in the processes of second language acquisition and new identity formation. We might ompare Ó hIfearnáin’s (2008: 125; 2018: 162–3) discussion of Niall Ó Dónaill’s 1951 essay Forbairt na Gaeilge. 6 This is not to deny, however, that significant changes in language ideologies have no doubt occurred, and further research into historical discourses of language revival movements since the nineteenth-century would be useful to elucidate this area. 7. What would a ‘new speaker’ model mean in practice? Although new speaker scholars may claim that anti-essentialist ideologies are gaining ground, and imply that this is a good thing, it is rarely made clear what a move away from native speaker models would mean in practice, in terms of pedagogy and corpus planning, especially. Many fluent new speakers of Irish, for example, frequently replace the velar fricative [x] with the stop [k], or have inconsistent realization of the palatalization contrast (Ó Broin 2014; Snesareva 2017). Is it plausible, or desirable, that such features should be explicitly affirmed as part of a target variety, even in a polynomic target? In the absence of any obvious way of codifying new speaker varieties that would be likely to gain widespread support, an uneasy diglossia between overt native speakerism and covert valorization of new speaker practices looks likely to continue, and perhaps widen. Perhaps the energies of sociolinguists would be better spent on critically, but sensitively, evaluating ways in which negative impacts of these tensions might be alleviated, rather than on finger-wagging at broad swathes of ideological stances which may turn out, in some renegotiated form, to be indispensable. 8. New speaker ideas and public policy The influence of new speaker scholarship is beginning to be seen in policy recommendations made at the request of public bodies. Walsh, O’Rourke and Rowland (2015) is a report on ‘new speakers’ of Irish commissioned by Foras na Gaeilge. The authors (Walsh et al. 2015: 55) suggest that Personal accounts of new speakers of Irish could be used to inspire potential new speakers. This could be done through properly funded awareness, broadcast and social media campaigns as has happened in other minority language contexts such as Catalonia […] The absence of such high profile campaigns is a major weakness in Irish language policy at present. (Walsh et al. 2015: 55–56) The possibility of supporting alternative ideologies which might be more conducive to increasing new speakers’ confidence is also highlighted: The report illustrates how many new speakers suffer social anxiety about speaking Irish and have low levels of confidence in their ability to communicate effectively with Gaeltacht speakers. Policy initiatives should emphasise the fact that becoming an Irish speaker does not necessarily mean adopting a traditional variety and that other competent speakers could act as role models for potential new speakers. 7 (Walsh et al. 2015: 56) This anxiety and lack of confidence are linked to a realization on the part of new speakers that their Irish does not conform to traditional Gaeltacht-based norms, and stigma attached to such non-conformity. One solution, as suggested in the report, is to redefine what is a good speaker and release the new speaker from the burden of trying to conform to native norms. This may well be a valid option, especially for those new speakers who either show little identification with Gaeltacht communities, or are beginning to construct alternative labels such as ‘Dublin Irish’ to describe a variety or varieties which they consider to have full legitimacy alongside Gaeltacht varieties. However, the evidence of Walsh et al. (2015) shows that many Irish learners continue to valorize Gaeltacht norms, albeit to varying extents, and it is not clear that they would be satisfied with simply being told they are ‘new speakers’ and should therefore stop worrying. It is likely that many would still feel uncomfortable claiming equal ownership and legitimacy with native Gaeltacht speakers, regardless of what new speaker researchers tell them (if these academic ideas reach them at all, that is), and that ideologies centred on Gaeltacht-based targets are likely to remain prevalent for the foreseeable future, alongside alternative stances. A possible way forward to support new speakers who have ‘essentialist’ or ‘native authenticist’ leanings would be to improve access to resources that can help them to achieve their aim, i.e. give them the ability to achieve more native-like competence. This could range from efforts to make the fruits of academic study of Gaeltacht varieties available in formats accessible to non-specialists (e.g. Ó Raghallaigh 2014), to increased subsidy, or bursaries, for the existing residential courses, which would also benefit Gaeltacht communities. Awareness-raising campaigns as suggested by Walsh et al. could also be useful, but directed at promoting resources for acquisition of the traditional dialects. Such awareness raising could point to digital resources which can be accessed outside the Gaeltacht, without the need for ‘expensive visits to summer colleges which not everyone can afford’, which is a stumbling block for one of the speakers interviewed by Walsh et al. (2015: 44). It may also be possible to develop models which embrace in some degree native speaker models, while seeking to address some of the challenges and insecurities faced by new speakers and rightly highlighted by new speaker scholars. See for example Smith-Christmas’s (2018) recent report on her experience at a language course in the West Kerry Gaeltacht: The way in which we were taught the differences between how things are said in Corca Dhuibhne versus elsewhere, for instance, was to enable us to have everyday conversations with people in that region. […] It was clear that the facilitators wanted to help us speak with people in Corca Dhuibhne, so they emphasized this, along with other differences, throughout the course. It was not simply as a point of interest, or a means to position Corca Dhuibhne as the “right” way to speak. Rather, it was a crucial part of the “story” and a way for us to take part in the ongoing story of language revitalization in Corca Dhuibhne. (Smith-Christmas 2018, original emphasis) 8 9. Embracing ideological diversity New speaker scholars have made an important contribution to our understanding of the varied experiences and language ideologies of a category of speakers who are gaining in prominence in many minority language contexts, and who have arguably been neglected in the past. However, it is important as this field moves forward that we avoid reductive dismissals of certain kinds of deeply-held language ideology, while giving a relative free pass to other ideologies which may turn out to be problematic in their own ways. Speakers are unlikely to adopt en masse whatever ideology happens to be received wisdom among linguists at a given moment, although as alluded to earlier, there is a long tradition of impatience and frustration among linguists that this is the case. A more fruitful way forward may be to see a ‘variety of ideologies’ as an explicit strength in language revitalization, rather than as merely an obstacle, as highlighted by DaviesDeacon (2017: 82, 92) in the Cornish context: much recent work on Cornish from a sociolinguistic perspective, […] is uncritical of contemporary language planning, presenting the development of the so-called Standard Written Form of Cornish (SWF) as a neat solution to disagreement […] and implying that other varieties and orthographies can now be put aside. This work is in danger of neglecting the fact that the Cornish language community draws on different and sometimes conflicting ideologies (Davies-Deacon 2017: 82) [Examining these discourses] will […] provide guidance on how the limited support available should be deployed as the years progress in order to sustain the variety of ideologies that underpin the movement. (ibid.: 92) 10. Ideological clarification Furthermore, we now know a considerable amount about what speakers such as ‘Liam’ and ‘Sharon’ think and feel when interviewed individually – but it remains unclear what kinds of more refined, and more reflexive, perspectives would emerge if sociolinguists were to facilitate dialogue between individuals with differing ideologies. Compare Bell et al. (2014) and Bell and McConville (2018) for an innovative example from Scottish Gaelic of how this might work in practice. Possibly a consensus would emerge, or an (informed) agreement to disagree – a polynomy of language ideologies rather than just language varieties – but at any rate, ‘ideological clarification’, and consideration of the practical and empirically-verifiable costs and benefits of different ideologies is beginning to be identified as a priority for future research, as noted by Ó Murchadha and Migge (2017: 8). (Cf. also Fishman 1991: 17; Dauenhaur and Dauenhauer 1998; Kroskrity 2009: 73; Sallabank 2013; Austin and Sallabank 2014.) 9 In addition to documenting those practices and ideologies around them, it would be informative to illustrate the extent to which different linguistic models are successfully implemented and allow users of all levels of proficiency to participate in the lives of the Celtic languages and contribute to their vitality (Ó Murchadha and Migge 2017: 8) In such processes of ideological clarification, ‘essentialist’ positions, drawing on native speakerism, native authenticism and purism, are likely to feature prominently, and although they may emerge renegotiated and transfigured in certain respects, they are unlikely to disappear. In this paper I have sought to offer the skeleton of an analysis which would provide a more balanced, sympathetic and productive engagement with these discourses than has in my view been apparent in much new speaker scholarship to date, and in linguistics more broadly, but there is clearly much more work to do in this area. References: Adrey, Jean-Bernard. 2009. Discourse and struggle in minority language policy formation: Corsican language policy in the EU context of governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan) Austin, Peter K. and Julia Sallabank. 2014. ‘Introduction’ in Endangered languages: beliefs and ideologies in language documentation and revitalization, ed by. Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 1–25 Bell, Susan, Mark McConville, Wilson McLeod and Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh. 2014. Dlùth is Inneach – Final Project Report: Linguistic and Institutional Foundations for Gaelic Corpus Planning (Bòrd na Gàidhlig) Bell, Susan and Mark McConville. 2018. ‘Dlùth is Inneach: Charting Language Ideology in the Contemporary Gaelic World’, in Gaelic in Contemporary Scotland: The Revitalisation of an Endangered Language, ed. by Marsaili MacLeod and Cassie Smith-Christmas (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), pp. 114–27. Blackwood Robert. 2011. ‘Language beliefs and the polynomic model for Corsican’, Language Awareness, 20: 17–30 Cameron, Deborah. 2012. Verbal Hygiene, 2nd edn (London: Routledge) Davies-Deacon, Merryn. 2017. ‘Names, varieties and ideologies in Revived Cornish’, Studia Celtica Posnaniensia, 2: 79–93 Dauenhauer, Nora Marks and Richard Dauenhauer. 1998. ‘Technical, emotional, and ideological issues in reversing language shift: examples from Southeast Alaska’, in Endangered Languages Language Loss and Community Response, ed. by Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 57– 98) Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Giddens, Anthony. 2001. Sociology, 4th edn (Cambridge: Polity Press) Hall, Robert A. 1950. Leave Your Language Alone! (Ithaca: Linguistica) 10 Hornsby, Michael and Gilles Quentel. 2013. ‘Contested varieties and competing authenticities: neologisms in revitalized Breton’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 223: 71 – 86 Jaffe, Alexandra. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) ——— 2005. ‘L’éducation bilingue corse et la polynomie’, Marges linguistiques, 10: 282–300 Kroskrity, Paul V. 2009. ‘Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological Struggle: The Need for “Ideological Clarification”’, in Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned, ed. by Jon Reyhner and Louise Lockard (Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University), pp. 71–83 Le Pipec, Erwan. 2013. ‘Les trois ruptures sociolinguistiques du breton’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 223: 103 – 16 Marcellesi, Jean-Baptiste, Thierry Bulot and Philippe Blanchet. 2003. Sociolinguistique: Épistémologie, langues régionales, polynomie (Paris: L’Harmattan) Marshall, Gordon. 1998. Oxford dictionary of sociology (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press) McWhorter, John. 2007. Defining Grammatical Complexity (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Ó Broin, Brian. 2014. ‘New Urban Irish: Pidgin, Creole, or Bona Fide Dialect? The Phonetics and Morphology of City and Gaeltacht Speakers Systematically Compared’, Journal of Celtic Linguistics, 15: 69– 91 Ó Dónaill, Niall. 1951. Forbairt na Gaeilge (Baile Átha Cliath: Sairséil agus Dill) Ó hIfearnáin, Tadhg. 2008. ‘Endangering Language Vitality through Institutional Development: Ideology, Authority, and Official Standard Irish in the Gaeltacht’, in Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties, ed. by Kendall A. King, Natalie Schilling, Lyn Wright Fogle, Jia Jackie Lou and Barbara Soukup (Washington, D.C.: Grangetown University Press), pp. 113–28 ——— 2014. ‘Paradoxes of engagement with Irish Language Community Management, Practice, and Ideology’, in Endangered languages: beliefs and ideologies in language documentation and revitalization, ed by. Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 1–25 ——— 2018. ‘The Ideological Construction of Boundaries Between Speakers, and Their Varieties’, in New Speakers of Minority Languages: Linguistic Ideologies and Practices, ed. by Cassie Smith-Christmas, Noel P. Ó Murchadha, Michael Hornsby and Máiréad Moriarty (London: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 151–64 Ó Murchadha, Noel P. and Bettina Migge. 2017. ‘Support, transmission, education and target varieties in the Celtic languages: an overview’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30, 1–12 Ó Raghallaigh, Brian. 2014. Fuaimeanna na Gaeilge. 2nd edn (Baile Átha Cliath: Cois Life). Accompanying website: <http://www.fuaimeanna.ie/ga/> [accessed 13.10.2017] O’Rourke, Bernadette and Joan Pujolar. 2013. From native speakers to “new speakers”— Problematizing nativeness in language revitalization contexts O’Rourke, Bernadette and John Walsh. 2015. ‘New speakers of Irish: shifting boundaries across time and space’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 231: 63 – 83 11 Sallabank, Julia. 2010. ‘Standardisation, prescription and polynomie: can Guernsey follow the Corsican model?’, Current Issues in Language Planning, 11: 311–30. ——— 2013. Attitudes to Endangered Languages: Identities and Policies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Smith-Christmas, Cassie. 2018. ‘Language as a Story: Learning Irish in Corca Dhuibhne’. Magazine article, Folklife, 19.09.2018 <https://folklife.si.edu/magazine/language-as-a-story-learning-irish-in-corcadhuibhne> [accessed 31.10.2018] Snesareva, Marina. 2017. ‘Palatalisation in Dublin Irish, or how to speak Irish with a Dublin accent’, Studia Celtica Posnaniensia, 2: 61–78 Stanfield, R. Brian. 2000. The Art of Focused Conversation. Philadelphia: Chipping Norton. Walsh, John, Bernadette O’Rourke and Hugh Rowland. 2015. New Speakers of Irish: Research Report prepared for Foras na Gaeilge (Dublin: Foras na Gaeilge) 12