The information presented here points to a simultaneous situation of both language decline and language revitalisation. The context of Gaelic does not present a straightforward example of either of these two processes. In examining the census figures in isolation, while admitting they are self-reported figures and may contain some discrepancies from year to year, the picture is one of language obsolescence after a long history of social persecution. But on a national level, and at community level in Glasgow and in Lewis, this is not accurate: the Scottish government and local authorities are making intense efforts to promote and revitalise Gaelic with the hope of increasing the figures from the census. Even then, the raw numbers do
not display the changing social context of Gaelic. Previously considered a language spoken by the ‘uncivilised’ in a geographically remote and ‘culturally backward’ part of Scotland, the social context of Gaelic is now changing beyond recognition: today Gaelic is at times used as the sole language for educating future generations of speakers, and is the source of multiple employment possibilities both in the traditional heartlands of the language, and in urban central Scotland. These new jobs in Gaelic are not only in traditional occupations such as weaving and crofting, but many are high-status and highly-paid such as in media, education, arts, administration and politics. Gaelic is now a language with substantial economic and social capital, which has previously not been the case. The language is also more nationally and locally visible and has increased presence and status in the media and in national politics.
While the Gaelic language has previously been associated with obsolescence (Dorian 1981), language revitalisation is a significant new factor in the social history of the language. This thesis concentrates on the linguistic outcome of these new social developments and looks to social and linguistic explanations for language change. The following chapter describes the methodology used in this thesis, and then Chapters 5–8 describe the results of the social and linguistic analyses.
Methodology
This chapter discusses the methods used to collect data for this thesis and justifies their use.
While the broad methodologies are outlined here, detail on the exact phonetic analyses carried out can be found in the corresponding chapter for the particular feature in question. This thesis employs mixed methods, combining qualitative ethnography with quantitative phonetic analysis. The aim of using mixed methods was to investigate linguistic changes, but also gain a better understanding of the social motivations behind change using qualitative data.
Qualitative data analysis, such as the ethnographic methods used here, aims to understand the social world through the experiences of the research participants. Such research typically takes a constructionist view of the social world, and aims to understanding the meanings behind social structures, and the participants’ relationship to them (Bryman 2004, 266). Qual-itative research’s emphasis on meaning, participant experience, and a social constructionist viewpoint mean it is immediately amenable to investigating identity as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2.4. Here I combine this qualitative examination of identity construction with variationist sociolinguistics, a typically quantitative framework (e.g. Tagliamonte (2006)).
The quantitative analysis allows the examination of patterns in speech and the exploration of their relationship to socially relevant categories identified over the course of the ethnographic fieldwork.
The ethnographic methodology used here to gain an insight into the use of Gaelic in identity construction among the participants is explained in Section 4.1. The linguistic analysis is conducted within a variationist sociophonetic framework, which is explained in Section 4.2. The research was conducted among three groups of speakers: older speakers in Lewis, adolescent speakers in Lewis, and adolescent speakers in Glasgow. The motivation for recording speakers in Lewis and in Glasgow is explained in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 explains how speakers were recruited for interview, and which speakers were analysed in each of the phonetic analysis chapters presented here. Although this Section explains which participants were analysed, the exact justification for which groups of speakers were analysed, and why these particular groups were chosen emerged over the course of the ethnographic research, and will be fully explained in the ethnographic analysis (Chapter 5).
Section 4.5 then discusses the semi-structured sociophonetic interview methodology used 54
with each group of speakers to collect linguistic and further qualitative data. Which linguistic features were analysed, and how their analysis relates to the research questions in Chapter 1, is explored in Section 4.6. Section 4.7 then describes and justifies the statistical analysis techniques used for exploring patterns in the linguistic data. Section 4.8 describes the ethical approval process for this research, and Section 4.9 summarises the chapter.
4.1 Ethnographic methods
Ethnography has been used to explore and explain the use of linguistic variation in identity construction in several previous variationist sociolinguistic studies, for example, Eckert (2000); Moore (2003); Alam (2007); Mendoza-Denton (2008); Drager (2009); Hall-Lew (2009); Lawson (2011); Jones (2012). Previously, ethnographic methods have been widely used in other areas of sociolinguistics such as the research areas headed by Gumpertz &
Hymes (1972). This thesis also draws on ethnographic methodologies, and this section discusses exactly which elements of ethnographic methods are employed.
Ethnography is a family of methods, rather than a method in itself. Although the term
‘ethnography’ is used to refer to a wide range of different techniques and practices across disciplines, several common themes emerge which define this group of methods: ethnography involves direct and sustained contact with a group of people in the context of their daily lives, and it involves asking questions and listening in an attempt to understand the participants’
view of the world (O’ Reilly 2005, 3). Participant observation has become established as a central component of ethnographic methods. This practice dates from the seminal work by Malinowski (1922), although it has been adapted to specific times, places, and situations over the years. Malinowski recommended spending long periods of time observing, but also participating in the community under study in order for the participants to become familiar with the researcher.
Ethnography recognises the reflexivity and constant renegotiation of self within the social world discussed in Chapter 2 in the work of Giddens and Bourdieu. The role of the ethnographer then is to listen and learn from local people in their negotiation of their social world. This is explored in the seminal essay on Balinese cock-fighting by Geertz (1973).
Geertz explains how cock-fighting is an integral part of constructing what it means to be Balinese. He describes the fights as a narrative of Balinese experience, and his role as an ethnographer is to record such narratives (Geertz 1973, 452):
The culture of a people is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong.
Ethnography then is listening to how people construct their own social world rather than recording a static notion of culture and tradition as defined by the researcher.
Ethnography, and all social research more generally, also involves acknowledging the researcher’s own background, and ensuing biases this may bring to the research (O’ Reilly 2005; Wright Mills 1959). When I conducted the fieldwork for this thesis I was aged 24-25 and had been learning Gaelic for 1-2 years. I am from England, and speak English with a northern English accent. As an English person in Glasgow or the Highlands I will always be an outsider, though outsiders in both these areas are tolerated, and especially welcomed in Lewis if they speak Gaelic. Participants had experience of Gaelic learners and students so it was easy for me to slip into this identity with which they were familiar. It is, however, unusual for someone English with no connections to the Highlands to learn Gaelic to fluency, and this prompted much comment, which only served to enrich my qualitative data and help to build a relationship with my participants. My research in both Lewis and Glasgow involved substantial participant observation. I played on my status as an outsider to ask lots of questions about the daily life of the people I was observing, and especially the role of Gaelic in their lives. As well as participant observation, my ethnographic data collection involved interviews, which are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.