Printer Friendly

Measuring Gaelic language planning.


This paper looks at four documents produced in the last twenty years which are indicators of Gaelic development principles at their relative times of publication. These documents are measured against theoretical language planning strategies, allowing for a link to be made between the academic and the practical sides of language development and planning. How do Gaelic language maintenance initiatives fit into the theoretical models of language planning and are there any lessons for Gaelic planners and policy makers to learn? Conversely, are there any lessons to be learnt from Gaelic language development or has any particular strategy been developed which would allow us to determine a new type of language planning?


The origins of modern Gaelic language development can be traced to the 1982 report Corna Gaidhlig commissioned by the Highlands and Islands Development Board (HIDB). One of the conclusions of this report was an endorsement that Gaelic development was in fact a responsibility of the government's Highland development agency, and as a result was eligible for increased financial support. Prior to this some limited state support had been available, for example to An Comunn Gaidhealach and to some local authorities.

The greatest impact of Corna Gaidhlig was the recommendation that led to the creation of the Gaelic development agency Comunn na Gaidhlig (CnaG) in 1984. CnaG was to be jointly funded by the Scottish Office/Executive (and most recently Bord na Gaidhlig) and HIDB and its successor Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE). Because CnaG was dependent initially, at least, on funding from a development agency whose priorities were not principally related to the language but rather to the social and economic development of Highland communities, CnaG's development priorities, and to a large extent those of the Gaelic sector, have historically been influenced by strategies and principles which have not had language at their core.

For nearly twenty years Gaelic development (outside of broadcasting) (1) has, to all intents and purposes, been directed in three key areas: education, the arts (sometimes culture and the arts) and economic development (later social and economic development). It seems likely that the availability of project funding in these areas allowed shrewd language development animateurs the opportunities to increase Gaelic development activity under specific funding schemes, for example from the Scottish Arts Council, European Structural Funds, Lottery funding, etc., rather than being driven by any specific language strategy. (2) The practice of delivering development activity in the three sectors named above continued for over twenty years. Latterly the Gaelic development sector began to realise the need for more co-ordinated strategic direction and state support specifically geared towards the language. Gaelic language activists petitioned government: for secure status for Gaelic, via the inception of a Gaelic language act, a national language policy, and a suitably funded Gaelic language board (see for example CnaG (1997 and 1999a), Taskforce of Public Funding of Gaelic (2000), Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic (2002)).

For more than twenty years CnaG has been at the forefront of Gaelic development. Its publications give clear indication of how Gaelic development worked. These have included a number of strategy documents, some specifically to do with education (CnaG 1997a), broadcasting (CnaG 1988 and 1989) or attaining secure legal status of the language (CnaG 1997b and 1999a) and others more generally to do with Gaelic development (CnaG 1999b). This article will later consider one document which, although not authored by CnaG, was co-sponsored by it and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and is particularly relevant in interpreting Gaelic language planning ideologies: Dynamics of Gaelic Development (1993). This document maintained that language development could be achieved along the lines of socio-economic development:
   Educational and cultural development is fundamental to the
   regeneration of Gaelic but it is through the main-stream commercial
   application of Gaelic that prosperity and employment gains are
   likely to be most substantial. Ascribing a greater commercial worth
   to the language will undoubtedly raise its profile, stimulate
   demand for its use and justify increased education provision,
   particularly when wealth and jobs are created. Success will,
   however, be contingent upon Gaelic services and products being of
   the highest possible quality. (Pedersen 1993: 7)

CnaG's role at the forefront of Gaelic development began to change following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. In 1999 a Gaelic taskforce was established to "examine the arrangements and structures for the public support of the Gaelic organisations in Scotland, to advise Scottish Ministers on future arrangements" (Taskforee 2000: 2). The taskforce report Revitalising Gaelic (often referred to as the MacPherson report after the Chair of the taskforce) made a number of recommendations, following extensive consultation with the Gaelic sector nationally. These recommendations included: the establishment of a Gaidhealtachd department within the civil service; a new annual development budget of 10m [pounds sterling]; the creation of a Gaelic development agency responsible to the Scottish Executive which would direct development in the areas of education and learning, arts, culture and heritage, social and economic development and language planning and development (Taskforce 2000: 4-5). The report also mentions corpus and status planning, and recommends that future Gaelic development should, in addition to developing the enduring three areas, consider language planning as a key functional area (Taskforce 2000: 10).

The MacPherson report also suggested that language planning and development should be regionalised into three distinct areas: heartland, rest of Gaidhealtachd, and rest of Scotland and the diaspora; and that development would have different emphasis according to the specific needs of the community. In a controversial (3) response to the MacPherson report MacCaluim and McLeod recommended that the
   geographical division should be rejected on the grounds that the
   creation of a 'rest of Scotland and diaspora' division would be
   likely to sideline the cities, the Lowlands, the majority of Gaelic
   learners and a significant minority of native Gaelic speakers in
   future Gaelic development. While different policies will be needed
   in different areas of Scotland, the importance of the Lowlands, the
   cities and Gaelic learners must be taken into account in Gaelic
   development policy (MacCaluim and McLeod 2001: ii).

No subsequent language development strategies have suggested that language planning should be regionalised.

Very little action was prompted by the MacPherson report other than the Scottish Executive's commissioning another report on Gaelic by a purposely-created Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic, this time chaired by Prof. Donald Meek. The recommendations of this Group made a case for a language act to protect Gaelic and advocated the creation of a Gaelic development agency which would have non-departmental public body status. The group's report also published a language strategy/plan which was never implemented by the Gaelic development sector. Once again, this strategy recommends that development should centre on the three sectors of education, culture and arts and social and economic development. For the first time, however, there is an awareness of the requirement for development to be driven by strategic 'language planning'. The report also refers to the system of language planning used in Wales, based on sociolinguistic principles of corpus, usage, maintenance and status planning. The report, however, did not propose that this system above all others should be used.

Bord na Gaidhlig (Alba) was originally established in 2002, and was re-established formally as a non-departmental public body under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. In some respects Bord na Gaidhlig represents the culmination of many years' hard work for those involved in language revitalisation in Scotland. However, with the language still in serious decline, Bord na Gaidhlig has much work to do: the last census revealed that there were only 58,700 speakers of Gaelic. (4) Since 2003, Bord na Gaidhlig has published four language development strategy documents: Strategic Priorities (2003), Operational Plan (2004), The National Plan for Gaelic (2007) and, for public authorities, Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans (2007).


This section will analyse five documents which are key markers of the principles of language planning employed in the Gaelic development sector at four different periods of time: Dynamics of Gaelic Development (1993), Gaidhlig plc Plana Leasachaidh Canain: A Development Plan for Gaelic (1999), the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic Report (2002) and The National Plan for Gaelic and Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans (2007).

2.1 Dynamics of Gaelic Development

The Dynamics of Gaelic Development (DGD) was presented to the CnaG annual conference "Air adhart le Gaidhlig: Forward with Gaelic" in 1993; it was commissioned by HIE and CnaG. As stated above, DGD clearly linked Gaelic with the contemporaneous social and economic development sector in the Highlands and islands. While DGD was never adopted as a strategy to guide development, the way in which it recommends that development should be compartmentalised and its discussion on the role of social and economic development in language planning is important.

DGD intended that language regeneration would be achieved through Gaelic-medium education, cultural motivation, wealth creation through economic development and strategic coordination. DGD describes the type of activity which should take place in each of these areas in order to fulfil the aims. With regard to Gaelic-medium education activity, it was intended that growth would be achieved at pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary and extra-curricular levels. Arts development, historical societies, youth activities and adult leisure activities were all seen as part of cultural motivation. It was anticipated that wealth creation would occur through a Gaelic/bilingual approach to commerce, the media, learners' industry, cultural tourism, services and other activities. Strategic coordination would involve Gaelic agencies, government (central and local), development agencies and churches (Pedersen 1993: 2). Indicators were set for: number of Gaelic speakers, Gaelic-medium education, extra-curricular activity for school pupils, adult learners, cultural activities, cultural tourism turnover, broadcasting hours and other employment opportunities. The indicators proposed by DGD were never adopted by the development sector as for the most part they greatly overestimated the capabilities of the development sector.

Roy Pedersen, the author of this strategy, advocates associating language with economic wealth:
   Ascribing a greater commercial worth to the language will
   undoubtedly raise its profile, stimulate demand for its use and
   justify increased education provision, particularly when wealth and
   jobs are created (Pedersen 1996: 89).

The concept is not new to language planning. Raising the status of a minority language, in this case through associating it with wealth, is, of course, a major part in minority language regeneration. With DGD, however, there is an issue of degrees of appropriateness and achievable goals (the targets set in the document were grossly over-estimated and could not have been founded upon any type of empirical research). Given that the Gaelic language had been institutionally persecuted for many generations (MacKinnon 1991), language confidence and pride amongst many Gaelic speakers would be low; and targets for language and social cohesion should have taken cognisance of this. Fishman, for example, warns that reversing language shift does not imply the establishment of the equilibrium but the achievement of stability. He maintains that a strategy must consist of expert diagnosis as to the most crucial inter-generationally continuous functions that can be tackled given the available resources; in other words he warns against setting unachievable goals (Fishman 1991 : 86-87).

DGD shows no sign of having been created under the guidance or principles of any particular language planning theory. Indeed, its author was an expert practitioner in social and economic development, rather than language development. Its fundamental theory, however, does bear particular resemblance to at least one theory of language planning. The DGD focuses on associating economic wealth with increased language usage, and as such it resembles the 'Catherine Wheel' model of language planning by Miquel Strubell. Strubell presents this model as a type of flow chart:


Strubell's 'Catherine wheel' language planning model involves the creation of supply and demand of services in the language: when this configuration results in greater consumption of the language, a greater perception of usefulness and greater motivation to learn will ensue. By creating a link with the desirable socioeconomic side of society and by careful strategic management, Strubell proposes a model for attempting to achieve the reversal of language shift:
   The 'Catherine Wheel' model views the individual as the centre of
   any process of democratic social change. In the illustration, the
   individual is taken as a consumer. Any of the six steps may be
   subject to blockage, and it is the task of the language
   policymakers to overcome the causes of blockage with specific
   measures where they are required. However, more often than not the
   measures are neither directly linguistic in nature, nor can they be
   adopted by language planners on their own. (Strubell 2001 : 280)

Strubell is demonstrating an awareness of society other than just the language society: his theory is founded on language existing in a society led by market forces. As Strubell's model is circular it is possible to begin using it at any stage, according to the needs of the particular community.

Strubell has indicated that he is not aware of any language community which has attempted to use this language planning system (personal communication). However, DGD, published several years before the Catherine Wheel model, does share some of the same principles.

2.2 Gaidhlig plc Plana Leasachaidh Canain: A development plan for Gaelic

The general principles of DGD can also be seen in CnaG's 1999 strategy document Gaidhlig plc Plana Leasachaidh Canain: A development plan for Gaelic. This document was written in the run-up to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and as a result there is a clear desire and expectancy expressed throughout that the new Parliament will improve the status and infrastructure for Gaelic. For this very reason the document makes an interesting study. The strategy sets targets in the following areas: co-ordination and development (with three over-arching aims of securing the status of Gaelic in legislation, improving the co-ordination of Gaelic development efforts and re-directing resources to offer Gaelic a fairer share in key sectors) (CnaG 1999: 21); education with particular targets for schools, pre-school, further and higher education, Gaelic learners and youth services (27-28); broadcasting; the Gaelic arts; community and economic development.

Out of all the areas for development named above, that of 'coordination and development' takes up most space within the document (five pages, compared to education with three pages and the other sectors with one page each). Improved organisation, status and power within the development sector was seen as important for the future of Gaelic development; in Strubell's terms it would facilitate the 'unblocking' of the Catherine Wheel model. Gaidhlig plc sets out a model of how Gaelic development should be organised:


The framework for development, as described, was never implemented in the short term, following the publication of Gaidhlig plc, nor was this the structure used when Bord na Gaidhlig was established. The model does allow for consultation and some feedback via the 'National Gaelic Congress', (5) but does not clarify that any empirical research will be used to inform or to monitor policy.

Like the DGD, Gaidhlig plc also set targets for development in certain sectors. The targets in Gaidhlig plc are far more realistic than the ones in DGD; there is no evidence, however, of how CnaG set its targets (this would be interesting to know). The Gaidhlig plc targets are mostly concerned with take-up in Gaelic education and overall numbers of Gaelic speakers. Gaidhlig plc predicted that even with a 'positive development scenario' the number of Gaelic speakers in 2001 would be 54,850 (compared with 66,000 in DGD): as shown earlier, the actual number of speakers was 58,700. This is the only instance in which Gaidhlig plc underestimated the numbers: in the education sector the forecasted figures for take-up in Gaelic-medium primary schools were 2,700 ('positive development' scenario), 2,250 ('no active development' scenario) and 2,250 ('do nothing' scenario), (6) the actual number of children attending Gaelic-medium primary schools in Scotland in 2001 was 1,862. (7) For children in Gaelic-medium secondary the forecast was 900, 750 and 750 (again according to the same distinctions of development activity) and the actual number was 326. (8)

Gaidhlig plc makes no reference to any language planning theory or sociolinguistic methodology. However by target-setting and concentrating on improving the organisation of the development sector and relationships with government (thus improving status), there is an awareness of several of the key points of several of the theories discussed in this essay.

2.3 Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic Report

As stated in the introduction, the Ministerial Advisory Group Report (MAGOG) was published in 2002 at the request of the Scottish Executive; as part of the writing process there was extensive consultation with stakeholders in Gaelic development, including a conference and four meetings with representatives from each of the following sectors: education and learning; arts, culture and heritage; language planning and development and economic and social development (MAGOG 2002: 12-13). MAGOG consists of two parts. Part One is an outline strategy for furthering Gaelic development, suggesting a structure on which to base activity; the strategy is largely centred around the establishment of a language board (Bord na Gaidhlig), a language act and a language plan that directs development activity. Part Two is 'an outline three-year business plan, identifying objectives and priorities, including performance measures and targets' (MAGOG 2002: 12).

The MAGOG plan (Part 2) was not adopted by the Gaelic development sector, and there was never any attempt to implement this plan (Bord na Gaidhlig very quickly published its own Strategic Priorities document once it was established). Once again, however, this strategy recommends that development should centre on the three sectors of education, culture and arts, and social and economic development. Although the MAGOG plan was not acted upon and merely formed the basis for Bord na Gaidhlig's Strategic Priorities, and even though the plan is incomplete in terms of identifying certain key performance indicators, it is a significant document on at least two accounts. For the first time, there is an awareness of the requirement for development to be driven by strategic 'language planning'. The report refers to the system of language planning used in Wales. The Welsh development system is

############ based on sociolinguistic principles of acquisition, usage, status planning and corpus planning; however, the report did not propose that this system above all others should be used (MAGOG 2002: 60). Furthermore, this document represents a professionalisation of Gaelic language development, particularly in the 'business planning' approach. Once again, there is an attempt to set targets, but these targets are not related to numbers of people (unlike DGD).

MAGOG employs various business planning diagrams in its attempts to describe how language development should occur. Among the diagrams are a process flow diagram and a set diagram, as well various graphs. The process flow diagram indicates how language development should be driven:


It identifies key strategic areas for operation and also stakeholders within the respective sectors. As the diagram is portrayed, it would suggest that language planning (naturally) drives education and learning, and that this in turn drives arts, culture and heritage which, in turn, drives economic and social development. While this would be possible, it seems that perhaps the diagram misrepresents the strategic intention, which was that language planning would affect all sectors non-sequentially; there is certainly no evidence in the text to suggest that the converse is the intention. MAGOG gives another description of how it perceives the planning should impact on the development sectors:


In this diagram there is no 'knock-on' effect from sector to sector; each area is influenced simultaneously by language planning strategies. There is, however, a failure to take into account the fact that the three sectors only represent a part of Gaelic society and community. By directing development in these three sectors alone, aspects of language use are ignored and potentially left undeveloped and unpromoted. If one thinks of Gaelic as a whole, even as a circle to follow the MAGOG example, then one can certainly place the three sectors within the circle, but they alone are not wholly representative of Gaelic society:


The earlier CnaG strategy document Ghidhlig plc (1999) had a more complete diagram of how language planning and the three sectors for development related to Gaelic society:


The MAGOG plan, although not fully formulated, (9) represents the first attempt at formal business type planning for language development. Once again the rationale for using this type of planning mechanism had been previously explored by a language planner. The Irish language planner, Joe Mac Donnacha, has also recognised that language planning can be based on industrial planning models, because both types of planners require planning systems that work and succeed in their aim (usually growth in a particular sector). Mac Donnacha writes about "a chain of value-adding activities [that is] undertaken in order to bring a product or service from raw material to the provision of final customer service and support"; he continues that "this concept is based on the idea that an industry can be analysed as sets of activities, with each set of activities 'adding value' to the product or service and then passing it on to the next set of activities so that more value can be added" (Mac Donnacha 2000:15). He presents his model of language planning schematically in the following diagram:
Figure 2. Integrated Language Planning Model

Support      Organisational Structure and Effectiveness
                     Language-Planning Process

                     Human-Resource Management


                          Corpus Planning

                        Convergent Planning

Primary          Nurturing          Increasing          Increasing
Activities       positive            the level          the level
                 attitudes          of ability              of
                 towards              in the             language
                   the               language              usage

Primary          Nurturing        Increasing the
Activities          and          level of organic
               strengthening     inter-generational
               the language          language
                 community         transmission

(Mac Donnacha 2000: 16)

Mac Donnacha's primary activities are much more language-orientated than the sectors advocated for activity and development in the MAGOG plan. The strategy intends that the combination of both support and primary activities would succeed in addressing language shift.

2.4 The National Plan for Gaelic and Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans.

The first official language plan, The National Plan for Gaelic 2007-2012 was published along with Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans in March 2007. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 requires Bord na Gaidhlig to prepare a language plan which will "include a strategy for promoting and facilitating the promotion of (a) the use and understanding of the Gaelic language, and (b) Gaelic education and Gaelic culture". The Act also "gives the Bord authority to issue a statutory notice to any Scottish public authority, cross-border public authority or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, requiring that authority to develop a Gaelic Language Plan setting out how it will use and enable the use of Gaelic within the operation of its relevant functions" (section 2). The Plan is the Bord's third strategic document, but the other two (Strategic Objectives and the Operational Plan) were interim strategies pending the publication of The National Plan. Bord na Ghidhlig published a draft plan for public consultation, as required by the Act, in August 2006.

The National Plan is split into five sections: 1: an introduction, 2: a vision for Gaelic, 3: an overview of actions required to achieve the vision, 4: implementation and key projects, and 5: monitoring. In section 2, "A Vision for Gaelic", in addition to presenting a vision, the Plan also sets out how it wishes to achieve this vision; namely in four key areas. These are language acquisition, language usage, language status and language corpus; the vision proceeds to set out how development will be directed in each of these areas. For language acquisition there is a determination to achieve an increase in the use and transmission of Gaelic in the home; an increase in the percentage of children acquiring Gaelic in the home; an increase in the uptake and availability of Gaelic-medium education and an increase in adult Gaelic learners progressing to fluency. For language usage the Bord wishes an increase in the use of and confidence in Gaelic in communities; an increase in the use of Gaelic in tertiary education and places of work; an increase in the presence of Gaelic in the prim, broadcast and online media; an increase in the promotion of Gaelic in the arts; and an increase in the profile of Gaelic in the tourism, heritage and recreation sectors. With regard to language status the Bord desires an increase in the number of bodies with Gaelic Language Plans; an increase in the profile and prestige of Gaelic in Scotland and an increase in the visibility and recognition of Gaelic in Scotland. Finally, in terms of corpus planning, the Plan sets out its aims in increasing the attention given to the relevance and consistency of the Gaelic language; increasing the attention given to the quality and accessibility of Gaelic translations and increasing the availability of accurate Gaelic research information. (Bord na Gaidhlig 2007: 12-13) Section 4 of the plan gives detailed descriptions of activities and projects which will help achieve its aims.

In addition to giving clear strategic guidelines for operation within the Gaelic development sector, the Plan also sets numeric targets for the years 2021, 2031 and 2041. These targets relate to numbers of children in Gaelic medium education, numbers of Gaelic speakers and numbers of people who are able to read and write the language.

The National Plan is clearly modelled on the Welsh Language Board's scheme of language planning, as set out in The Welsh Language: A Vision and Mission for 2000-2005. The Bord acknowledges that The National Plan is based on this: "we have been guided by four well-established and interrelated language planning principles which have guided other situations of minority language development" (Bord na Gaidhlig 2007: 17). The principles adopted, firstly by the Welsh Language Board and secondly by Bord na Gaidhlig, are clearly rooted in sociolinguistic theory. One of the main differences between the relative plans of these organisations is that the Welsh strategy is based on both earlier work by the Board and also thorough research into the Welsh language situation: this research informed the Welsh Language Board's earlier work A Strategy for the Welsh Language (1995). Bord na Gaidhlig so far has not conducted any major research on the language community. When it does refer to such research, The National Plan uses the work of Kenneth MacKinnon, which is more than ten years old and, though undoubtedly informative, was not designed to inform language development strategy. (10)

Although leaders in the Gaelic development sector have always consulted thoroughly with stakeholders in the sector (for example the Taskforce of Public Funding of Gaelic, the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic, the Gaelic Bill, the draft National Plan), there is still a need for further analysis of the speech community. The need for a comprehensive survey of the language community is shown as fundamental in Kaplan and Baldauf's "Basic Language Planning Model":



The principles underpinning Gaelic development (and thus the sector) have always shown an awareness of the importance of the polity situation when creating language strategies. O Riagain insists that such an awareness is essential:
   Language policy is formulated, implemented, and accomplishes its
   results within a complex interrelated set of economic, social, and
   political processes which include, inter alia, the operation of
   other non-language state policies. It is necessary, with regard to
   any particular aspect of language policy, to take on board all of
   the contingent issues and the consequent enquiries and research
   that this will require. (O Riagain 1997: 43)

A chronological survey of Gaelic development strategy documents, as undertaken above, shows that in addition to an ability to respond to the polity situation, an awareness of the importance of using sociolinguistic theory is becoming apparent. The use of language planning theory as an instrument by which to create strategy is beginning to replace an over-reliance on creating strategy solely according to the polity situation. Gaelic development has been moulded by circumstance and situation. Prior to the establishment of a language body and act, Gaelic strategies were guided largely by other types of development principles which did not have their foundations in language planning methodology. Following the establishment of Bord na Gaidhlig and inception of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act, Gaelic development animateurs have the ability to set their own measures for funding activity and thus drive development accordingly; as such, although the most recent strategies, The National Plan and Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans, maintain the connection with the polity, they are also guided by language planning theory. Future plans must also be guided by research on the speech community and effective monitoring of the strategies' implementation, since until now there has been no effective measuring of strategy implementation or reflection on practice.


Ager, Dennis, 2001. Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, Colin, 1985. Aspects of Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

--1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bord na Gaidhlig, 2003. Strategic Priorities. Inverness.

--2004. Operational Plan. Inverness.

--2007 (a). Plana Naiseanta na Gaidhlig / The National Plan for Gaelic 2007-2012. Inverness.

--2007 (b). Guidance on the Development of Gaelic Language Plans. Inverness. Comunn na Gaidhlig, 1988. Towards a Gaelic Television Service. Inverness.

--1989. The Case for a Broadcasting Service: Response to the White Paper 'Broadcasting in the 90s'. Inverness.

--1997(a). Innleachd Airson Adhartais: Poileasaidh Naiseanta Foghlaim Gaidhlig / Framework for Growth: A national policy for Gaelic education. Inverness.

--1997(b). Inbhe Thearainte dhan Ghaidhlig / Secure Status for Gaelic. Inverness.

--1999(a). Dreach iul airson Achd Gaidhlig / Draft brief for a Gaelic Language Act. Inverness.

--1999(b). Gaidhlig plc--Plana Leasachaidh Canain / A Development Plan for Gaelic. Inverness.

--2001. "Foghlam, Foghlam, Foghlam, Aireamhan, Aireamhan, Aireamhan." Inverness.

Cormack, Michael J. and Hourigan, Niamh, eds., 2007. Minority Language Media: Concepts, Critiques, and Case Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, Joshua A., 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

--(ed.), 2001. Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.

General Register Office for Scotland, 2005. Scotland's Census 2001--Gaelic Report. Edinburgh.

Highlands and Islands Development Board, 1982. Cor na Gaidhlig: Language, Community and Development: The Gaelic Situation. Inverness.

Kaplan, Robert B. and Baldauf, Richard B., 1997. Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kirk, John M. and Donall O Baoill, eds. Towards our Goals in Broadcasting, the Press, the Performing Arts and the Economy: Minority Languages in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland. Belfast: Clo Ollscoil na Banriona.

MacCaluim, Alasdair, 2006. "Air iomall an iomaill? Luchd-ionnsachaidh na Gaidhlig ann an ath-thilleadh gluasad canain", in McLeod, ed., 185-197.

--and McLeod, Wilson (2001). Revitalising Gaelic? A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Taskforce on Public Funding of Gaelic. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Celtic Department.

Mac Donnacha, Joe, 2000. "An Integrated Language Planning Model", Language Problems Language Planning vol. 21 no. 1, 11-35.

McEwan-Fujita, Emily, 2005. "Neoliberalism and Minority-Language Planning in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland", International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171, 155-71.

MacKinnon, Kenneth, 1991. Gaelic: A Past and Future Prospect. Edinburgh: Saltire.

--2006. "The Western Isles Language Plan: Gaelic to English Language Shift 1972-2001", in McLeod, ed., 49-72.

--2007. Gaelic-medium Education 1985-2007. SGRUD Research.

McLeod, Wilson, ed., 2006. Revitalising Gaelic in Scotland. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

MacNeil, Catherine Ann, 2003. "The state of Gaelic Broadcasting in Scotland", in Kirk and O Baoill, eds., 60-66.

Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic / Buidheann Comhairleachaidh an Riaghaltais air Gaidhlig, 2002. A Fresh Start for Gaelic / Cothrom Ur don Ghaidhlig. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

NicAoidh, Magaidh, 2006. "Proiseact Plana Canain nan Eilean Siar: A' chiad ire--rannsachadh air suidheachadh na Gaidhlig arms na h-Eileanan Siar", in McLeod, ed., 73-86.

NicCraith, Mairead, ed., 1996. Watching One's Tongue: Issues in Language Planning. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

NicLeoid, Michelle, 2004. "Prionnsabalan ann am planadh canain". Inverness: Bord na Gaidhlig.

O Riagain, Padraig, 1997. Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland, 1893-1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pedersen, Roy, 1993. The Dynamics of Gaelic Development. Inverness: Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

--1996. "Scots Gaelic: An Economic Force", in NicCraith, ed., 80-102.

Strubell, M., 2001. "Catalan a Decade Later", in Fishman, ed., 260-283.

Taskforce of Public Funding of Gaelic / Buidheann-Gniomh Maoineachadh Poblach na Gaidhlig, 2000. Revitalising Gaelic: A National Asset / Ag Ath-Bheothachadh Gaidhlig: Neamhnuid Naiseanta. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive.

Welsh Language Board, 1995. A Strategy for the Welsh Language. Cardiff.

--1999. The Welsh Language: A Vision and Mission for 2000-2005. Cardiff.

Williams, Colin H., 2000. Language Revitalization: Policy and Planning in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Williams, Glyn & Morris, Delyth, 2000. Language Planning and Language Use: Welsh in a Global Age. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

University of Aberdeen.

(1) This discussion does not include broadcasting as part of the general language development movement because for much of the period under discussion it was part of separate strategy and funding initiatives. For further discussion on broadcasting see Cormack (2007) and Kirk and O Baoill (eds.) (2003).

(2) For a discussion on Gaelic project funding see McEwan-Fujita (2005).

(3) Following the publication of MacCaluim and McLeod's critique of the MacPherson report there was fierce debate in the columns and letter pages of the West Highland Free Press for a number of weeks in February and March 2002.

(4) General Register Office for Scotland (2005)--2001 Census Products--2001 Gaelic Report p. 9.

(5) Until the inception of Bord na Gaidhlig, CnaG held an annual congress of the type described in this model. There is no longer an annual congress of this type.

(6) DGD had 13,000, 8,000 and 2,000 respectively for these scenarios.

(7) Figures relating to Gaelic education come from Strathclyde University's annual census of the sector.

(8) DGD had 1,200, 1,000 and 500 respectively for these scenarios.

(9) The intention was that the MAGOG plan would be the first version of a rolling language plan which would be completed by Bord na Gaidhlig (on its inception) and annually updated.

(10) The National Plan refers to "recent research" (p. 10) about Gaelic in the community when referring to the informative "Language Use in Family, Community and Work Domains: The Euromosaic Gaelic Survey 1994/95-Scotland, Western Isles and Isle of Skye".
COPYRIGHT 2007 Association for Scottish Literary Studies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:MacLeod, Michelle
Publication:Scottish Language
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Jan 1, 2007
Previous Article:Migration, family and education in Gaelic policy perspective (1).
Next Article:Some Scottish names, including Vacomagi, Boresti, Iudanbyrig, Aberlessic and Dubuice.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |