Positioning and legitimacy in recent Cornish dictionaries
Presented on 27 JulyReies an 27 a vis Gorefen 2023, at theort an XVIIth International Congress of Celtic Studies, pednscol Utrecht University, 24–28 Julya vis Gorefen.
Also presented as an invited talk atOja galow, reies unweyth moy ort Emergent norms, models and target varieties in Celtic language revitalisation, University of Galwaypednscol Gaillimh, 27 Novembera vis Du 2023.
Abstract
Berrscrif
As a revived language, Cornish has seen debates around the form it should take, particularly in reference to the time period of the traditional language that should serve as a basis. Due to differing ideologies and beliefs about the functions Cornish should fulfil, competing varieties arose throughout the twentieth century as the language community grew, prioritising different aspects of traditional Cornish in their construction of the revived language: whether to base it on medieval or early modern Cornish, and whether to prioritise sounds or spellings in the orthography. This led to prominent, often emotionally charged debates in the 1980s–90s, involving the publication of multiple competing dictionaries as enthusiasts sought to legitimate their preferred variety. In the 2000s, the recognition of Cornish under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages motivated the creation of a new government-funded language planning body and an attempt at implementing a standard orthography. However, with the ideological differences among speakers impossible to reconcile satisfactorily in a single spelling system, the eventual Standard Written Form (SWF) comprised two main variant forms, based on different stages of traditional Cornish, as well as additional subsidiary variants.
This paper investigates the success of the implementation of the SWF by examining recent publications in Cornish lexicography spanning the varieties in use: the SWF itself, plus three of its most widely used competitors. Drawing on discourse analytical techniques, it illustrates how the writers of these materials make the decision to foreground or obscure their orthographic preferences, and what this tells us about the legitimacy of these varieties in the context of the wider Cornish language community. Showing that the writers of the SWF dictionary take care to note that it uses this orthography, but fail to provide an accurate explanation of the role of spelling variants, I argue that the SWF has not succeeded in taking over from pre-existing orthographic systems, and that the ideological differences that formerly drove conflict over language varieties continue to be present.
Slides
Imajys towlys
References
Scrifow a wruga vy gwul mencyon anodhans
- Davies-Deacon, M. (2017). Names, varieties, and ideologies in revived Cornish. Studia Celtica Posnaniensia 2, 81–95.
- George, K. J. (2017). Accommodating Middle and Late bases in Cornish orthography. Unpublished paper, available here (accessed 11 July 2023).Scrif hep dyllans, a ell boas gwelys obma (gwelys gena vy 11 a vis Gorefen 2023).
- George, K. J. (2020). An gerlyver meur. 3rd edition, Penzance: Cornish Language Boardja dyllans, Pennsans: Kesva an Tavas Kernewek.
- Harris, S., Harris, D., Harvey, P., andha Harvey, R. (2019). A learners’ Cornish dictionary in the standard written form. 2nd edition, Redruthsa dyllans, Resrudh: Ors Sempel.
- Kennedy, N. (2022). The annual English–Cornish dictionary 2022. LostwithielLostwydhyel: Cussül an Tavas Kernôwek.
- Williams, N, J. A. (2014). Geryow gwir: The lexicon of revived Cornish. 2nd editionsa dyllans, Cathair na Mart: Evertype.
- Woolard, K. A. (2016). Singular and plural: Ideologies of linguistic authority in 21st-century Catalonia. OxfordRosojyon: Oxford University Press.