Scots – a language for our time?

In this, Scotland's Homecoming year, it is a pertinent time to take stock of the current position of Scots language within contemporary Scottish culture. Many of this year's celebrations and events will foreground the importance of Scots literary culture (well, we are celebrating Burns' 250th anniversary after all), and this is of course to be welcomed. However, we would also do well to examine the current position of Scots language within popular non-literary culture, and specifically in the media, as providing a useful barometer of whether the fortunes of Scots language are rising or falling. The presence or absence of a 'minority language' in the media is often regarded as a good indicator of the overall health and vibrancy of the variety, and indeed the recent government 'Audit of Scots Language provision in Scotland' (published Jan 2009) investigated media provision as one of the seven CoEECRML¹ categories of public life. Here I concentrate on two very different media types, both of which are mentioned in the 'Audit'—newspapers and blogs—the former a long-established, public, fairly formal and largely institutionalised text type; the latter a much newer and more personal, though still public, and usually informal text type.

Burns, arguably part of the popular culture of his day, still has noticeable salience in Scottish newspapers and not only in articles discussing the man himself or his output. Well-known short phrases from his works such as the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley, facts are chiels that winna ding or wee, sleekit, cowrin timorous beastie are to be found with relative frequency, as are the clever puns made on them such as the best laid plans o' mice, men and homebuyers go desperately agley and ya wee sleekit, timrous, cowerin’ bassstart. It seems that the appeal of Scotland's Bard endures in today's popular culture and extends well beyond the realms of Burns Suppers and poetry readings.

But in newspapers it is clear that there are also perhaps unwritten but nevertheless generally binding rules as to what is and is not seen as appropriate or acceptable use of Scots language. Such Scots as does appear is generally restricted both in terms of its quantity and in where it is used. Feature-type articles, sports reports and the Education section are much more likely to use Scots than are hard news stories or front-page articles (well, to use Scots words at least, as examples of sustained dense/broad Scots are few and far between). Where sustained Scots does occur, it is either in clearly delineated contexts such as Robbie Shepherd's column in the Aberdeen Press and Journal or in feature-type articles, usually not written by journalists, discussing matters to do with the language itself, Scottish culture or other 'appropriate' topics. In these feature-type articles where Scots is the vehicle as well as the subject-matter, Scots is arguably often relegated to the status of cultural artefact.

By their very nature, newspapers are carefully produced documents. They are subject to rigorous editing processes, and nowadays are produced electronically (presumably with all the 'advantages' of spell-checkers etc). This means that any Scots language elements they contain are unlikely to be subconscious. What may be covert Scotticisms for many in speech are unlikely to remain so in print. So there is a level of awareness of usage. Readers also expect newspapers to use 'correct' language forms and uphold linguistic standards. These production methods and reader-expectations, coupled with a strong sense of where and how it is and is not appropriate to use Scots in newspapers, have a significant impact on the type, quantity and visibility of the Scots we find.

Lest we be tempted to lampoon the newspapers for what could be seen as a rather tokenist and caricatured Scots presence, it is worth first considering what our reaction would be to a serious news story, on the Scottish economy or government policy for example, written entirely in Scots. Would we find this acceptable or would we perhaps consider it to be highly inappropriate given the subject matter? Whilst it is tempting to blame the newspapers, and the media more generally, for stifling Scots and circumscribing its use, as consumers of these media texts, and consumers who can vote with our feet and/or wallets, surely we have some shared responsibility for these notions of appropriateness.

Scots in newspapers is often associated with humour, for example in The Herald and Scotsman 'Diaries'. The association of Scots with humour has a long history; indeed, one of the key Scottish stereotypes, the Kailyard, (think 'Dr Finlay’s Casebook') has pawky Scots humour as a central component. This is a state of affairs often lamented by Scots language activists, but there is clear evidence of people's appetite for Scots-based humour not just in newspapers but in the media more broadly. Think of the success of The Broons or Oor Wullie, or of TV comedy programmes such as 'Chewin’ the Fat', 'Still Game', 'Rab C. Nesbitt', 'Scotch & Wry' and 'Only an Excuse'. Over the years, popular comedians such as Billy Connolly, Rikki Fulton, Dorothy Paul, Jimmy Logan and Harry Lauder have all used forms of Scots, albeit often of the fairly thin and watered down variety, as an integral component in their comedy. The use of Scots in humour creates a cosy shared bond between speaker/writer and audience. If you need to understand the Scots words, expressions or even accent to 'get' the joke then, by definition, you have to 'belong' and so there is a powerful sense of shared Scottish or local culture. Given its power to bind people together with a sense of shared cultural identity, is this association of Scots with humour necessarily as problematic or harmful as has often been suggested? Perhaps it is something we should be celebrating rather than lamenting. [...]

This article has 2 pages. Go on to page 2 or view the entire article.

¹ Council of Europe European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992)