1

DRAFTPAPER:PLEASEDONOTCITELanguageRevitalisationandSocialTransformation:EvaluatingtheLanguagePolicy

FrameworksofSub-stateGovernmentsinWalesandScotland

HuwLewisandElinRoylesDrHuwLewis,InstituteofWelshPolitics,DepartmentofInternationalPolitics,Aberystwyth

University,Wales.Email:hhl@aber.ac.uk

DrElinRoyles,InstituteofWelshPolitics,DepartmentofInternationalPolitics,AberystwythUniversity,Wales.Email:ear@aber.ac.uk

AbstractEffortsbygovernmentsandrelatedagenciestorevitalizetheprospectsofminoritylanguagesareincreasinglycommonacrosstheworld.Significantly,theseeffortshavedevelopedagainstabackdrop of radical social, cultural, economic and political change. Societies are nowincreasingly individualistic, diverse and mobile; their economies are increasinglyinterconnected; and their governance structures are increasingly complex, incorporating anumberofdifferentlevelsandactors.Giventhatlanguageisessentiallyasocialphenomenon,this process of radical transformation inevitably has substantial implications for how policymakersengagedinminoritylanguagerevitalizationviewandapproachtheirwork.Inresponse,and as part of a broader effort to promote analysis of language policy as a distinct area ofpublicpolicy,thispaperinvestigatestheextenttowhichthelanguagerevitalizationstrategiesadopted by various sub-state governments give due consideration to contemporary social,cultural, economic and political trends. These issues are explored in case studies of the twomost prominent UK-based examples of government-led language revitalization – Welsh inWales andGaelic in Scotland. Interpretive content analysismethods are utilised in order togaugetheextenttowhichkeypolicydocumentsineachcasetakeaccountofprominentsocial,cultural, economic, political and technological changes. In conclusion, the paper argues thatalthoughtherewassomedegreeofreflectiononthelinguisticimpactofmajorsocial,economicand political changes and their implications for language revitalisation policy, overall, thisaspect was much more limited. Consequently, it points to the challenge for the languageplanningandpolicyliteratureandtheneedtostrengthentheintegrationbetweenhowmajorchanges currently being witnesses across Western societies are considered in policyprogrammesingeneralwithworkintheparticularfieldoflanguagepolicy.

1.Introduction:LanguagePolicyasaFormofPublicPolicyLanguagepolicycanbeunderstoodasaparticularformofpublicpolicythatseekstoinfluencethenatureofa society’s linguisticenvironment,and thussteer thepatternsof languageuseamongst individuals (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Grin, 2003). Significantly, given the need tocommunicatewithcitizens, it isapolicyfieldwithwhicheverymodernstatemustengage insomewayoranother(Patten:2001).Furthermore,debatesregardingtheexactnatureofthelanguage policies that should be adopted by states are beginning to claim an increasinglyprominentpositiononthepoliticalagenda,bothdomesticallyandinternationally.Overrecentyears, a series of trends, including immigration, sub-state nationalism and culturalglobalization,haveservedtounderlinetheextentofthelinguisticdiversitythatcharacterizesmostmodernsocieties,andthishasledtoanincreasedawarenessofthepolitical,economic

2

andculturalsignificanceofthelanguagepolicydecisionstakenbystates(KymlickaandPatten,2003). However,despitethecentralityoflanguagepolicytotheday-to-dayoperationofmostmodernstates,andthe fact thatcontemporary trendsunderline thepolitical salienceof thistypeofpolicyactivity,thereisasurprisinglackofscholarlyresearchthatsystematicallyseeksto understand language policy as a distinct area of public policy. Political scientists whospecialise in policy analysis and policy evaluation have largely ignored the field of languagepolicy.AsGrinargues(2003:38), it isafieldofpublicpolicythat 'oughttobeapproachedinthesamewayashealth,education,transportorenergypolicy.'However, instarkcontrasttothe extensive literature that focuses on these other fields, language policy has not receivedany sustained attention by public policy scholars. It should be acknowledged that since the1970s a number of applied linguists and sociolinguists have concerned themselveswith thesubject of language planning, understood as any deliberate effort, either by public bodies,corporations, community organisations or, indeed, parents, to influence the linguisticbehaviourofothers(Cooper,1989;KaplanandBaldauf,1997;Spolsky,2009).Yet,asRicento(2006)argues,thisworkhasfocussedmainlyontheoreticalquestions.Meanwhile, ‘whathasnot been much discussed is the practice of language planning, that is, the development,implementation, and evaluation of specific language polices’ (Ricento, 2006: 18, emphasisadded). Therefore, despite the field's political importance, a body of literature that isspecificallygearedtothetaskofeitheranalysingthenatureofthelanguagepolicyprocessorofevaluatingthecontentandimpactofparticularlanguagepoliciesislacking. This paper contributes to the process of filling this key lacuna. Its central aim is toengageinadetailedcomparativeanalysisofaparticularapproachtolanguagepolicy:effortstorevitalizetheprospectsofweakordeclininglanguages.Publicpolicyeffortsgearedtowardsthis task are increasingly common across the world, especially in sub-state nations such asQuebec (Chevrier, 2003), Catalonia (Strubell 2001), the Basque Country (Urla, 2015),Wales(Morris 2010) and Scotland (McLeod, 2006). Indeed, over the past few decades, policyprogrammes that seek to promote language revitalization have gradually become moresystematic and far-reaching in their scope, encompassing a range of regulatory, distributiveandconstituent instruments,andtouchingonkeysocialdomains, includingthefamilyhome,theeducationsystem,themedia,theeconomyandcivilsociety(Williams,2013). Significantly, these revitalization policy programmes have been developed andimplementedagainstabackdropofradicalsocialchange.Indeed,theturnfromthetwentiethcenturytothetwenty-firstcentury-theageofglobalization-iswidelyregardedasaperiodof'fundamental social transformation perhaps unmatched since industrialization' (Putnam andGoss,2005:14).Insum,societiesarenowincreasinglyindividualistic,diverseandmobile;theireconomies are increasingly interconnected; and their governance structures are increasinglycomplex,incorporatinganumberofdifferentlevelsandactors.1 Giventhatlanguageisessentiallyasocialphenomenon(Spolsky,2004),andgiventhetypesofdemographic,sociolinguistic,politicalandeconomicfactorsthatareviewedasbeing

1Forseminalaccountsofthisprocess,seeGiddens,1991;Beck1992;Bauman2000;Bell1973.2TheBòrdisanon-departmentalpublicbodyestablishedbytheGaelicLanguage(Scotland)Act2005.Thearrangements forWelsh languagepolicywere similar to theScottisharrangementsprior to2012whentheBwrddyr IaithGymraeg,astatutorybodyestablishedbytheWelshLanguageAct1993,wasdissolved due to enacting theWelsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 and the establishment of theWelshLanguageCommissioneroffice.3Exampleofsentencethat includesdifferentquasi-sentences isas follows: “Aim: increase intheuse

3

keydeterminantsofalangue'soveralllevelofvitality(Tsunoda,2005),currentchangesinhowpeople live their lives and interactwith each other should have substantial implications forhow policy makers engaged in language revitalization view and approach their work.Consequently, and as part of a broader effort to promote analysis of language policy as adistinct area of public policy, this paper investigates the extent to which such a criticalawareness is evident in thepolicyprogrammes currently guiding the revitalizationeffortsofvarious sub-state governments. In exploring this important issue the paperwill address twolinkedhypotheses:(i)thatthefactorsemphasizedintheselectedpolicyprogrammesasbeingkey determinants of linguistic vitality will reflect the key factors identified in the researchliteratureonlanguageshiftandlanguagerevitalization;(ii)thatthepolicyprogrammes,giventhetypesoffactorsexpectedtobeidentifiedaskeydeterminantsoflinguisticvitality,willalsoinclude reflection on the linguistic implications of a number of themajor changes currentlybeingwitnessedacrossWesternsocieties. Intermsofstructure, thepaper isorganisedas follows.Firstly, itsetsthecontextbyoutlining the types of factors that are usually considered as part of language revitalizationefforts, and by establishing the main features of the major social changes currently beingwitnessed across Western societies. The paper then goes on to outline the researchmethodology utilised to evaluate the evidence regarding level of engagement with suchchanges in the language revitalization policy programmes of the Welsh and Scottishgovernments respectively. The findings from this evaluation are then discussed in order toaddress the two research hypotheses. The paper concludes by assessing the implications ofthesefindingsforthelikelyeffectivenessofcurrentandfuturelanguagerevitalizationeffortsaswellastheirbroadersignificanceforthefieldsof languageplanningandpolicyanalysis. Itargues that though there was some degree of reflection on the linguistic impact of majorsocial,economicandpoliticalchanges,andtheirimplicationsforlanguagerevitalisationpolicy,overall, this aspect was much more limited and it thus posits the need to strengthen theintegration between howmajor changes currently beingwitnesses acrossWestern societiesareconsidered inpolicyprogrammes ingeneralwithwork in theparticular fieldof languagepolicy.2.LanguageRevitalizationandSocialTransformationAsNettleandRomaine(2000:32)observe,‘somedegreeofbi-ormultilingualismispresenttosome degree in practically every country in the world.’ However, this pattern of linguisticdiversityisnotfixedorstatic,norisitimmunefromanyformoffluctuation.Peoplehave,andoftenexercise,theabilitytolearnnewlanguagesandalsotoadoptnewpatternsoflanguageuse.Over time, this can give rise to the process termed by sociolinguists as 'language shift'(see, inparticular,Weinreich,1968;Fishman1964). Ingeneral, languageshift isaprocessof'downward languagemovement'which involves 'a reduction in thenumberof speakersofalanguage,adecreasing saturationof language speakers in thepopulation,a loss in languageproficiency,oradecreasinguseofthatlanguageindifferentdomains'(Baker,2011:72). Put simply, language revitalization can be viewed as a form of language policy thatseekstohaltandreversethisprocessofshift:differentpolicymeasuresareadoptedwiththeaimof ensuring that a vulnerable language community does not decline and disappear, butratherdemonstrates 'anew-foundvigour'(Paulston,1993:279).This, it isclaimed,willoccurwhenpolicy steps successfully address a rangeof factors that influence a language's overalllevelof'vitality'(Gilesetal,1977).Theseinclude:demographicfactorsrelatingtothenumbersthatspeakaswellastheirdistributionthroughoutthepopulationandacrossthegenerations;

4

sociolinguistic factors relating to the level of usemade of the language in a range of socialdomains, such as the family home, the education system, the workplace and the media;political-institutionalfactorsrelatingtothelevelofsupportaccordedtothelanguagethroughthepoliciesandwork-practicesofgovernment (stateorregional)aswellasotherprominentpublic and private institutions; economic factors relating to the professional status and thematerialwealthpossessedby speakersof the language;psychological factors relating to theattitudesofdifferentindividualsandcommunitiestowardsthelanguageaswellasthelevelofstatusorprestigeattributedtoit;andfinally,linguisticfactorsrelatingtotheconditionofthelanguage itself, in particular, its degreeof standardization, graphitization andmodernization(see, for example, Fishman, 1991; Edwards, 1992; Spolsky, 1996; UNESCO, 2003; Tsunoda,2005; Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Hinton, 2011). In response, over the past few decades,policyprogrammesthatseektopromotelanguagerevitalizationhavegraduallybecomemoresystematic and far-reaching in their scope, encompassing a range of regulatory, distributiveandconstituent instruments,andtouchingonkeysocialdomains, includingthefamilyhome,theeducationsystem,themedia,theeconomyandcivilsociety(Williams,2013). Giventhetypesfactorsthathavebeenhighlightedasonesthatneedtobeconsideredaspartoflanguagerevitalizationefforts,itshouldbenosurprisethatsociolinguistshavealsoemphasizedthatthoseengagedinsucheffortsneedtobeawaketochangesinthenatureofthegeneralsocial,economicandpoliticalcontextwithinwhichtheyoperate(Fishman,1991).Withthisinmind,therestofthesectiongoesontoconsiderwhatarethemainfeaturesofthefast-changingsocial context thatcharacterizes life inmostWesternsocieties today,and thatprovides a backdrop to contemporary language revitalization efforts. The discussion isorganised thematically: first it focuses on important socio-demographic trends, second itconsidersmajoreconomictrends,andthirditreflectsonsignificantpoliticaltrends.2.1Socio-demographictransformationThesocio-demographicprofileofmostWesternsocietiesisevolvingrapidlytowardsonethatis increasinglydiverse,mobile and individualistic.Wearewitnessing significant changes, notonly in terms ofwhomake up the population of such societies, but also in terms ofwherethesepeopleliveandhowtheyinteractwitheachother. First, a series of ongoing demographic trends have led to important shifts in thepopulation composition of most Western societies. For example, the population of suchsocietieshavebecomemoremulti-ethicandmulti-cultural in characterdue to the increasedprevalenceofinternationalmigration.InthewordsofCastlesandMiller(2003),thisis'theageofmigration'-aperiodinwhichinternationalmigratoryflowshavebecomemoreextensiveinterms of volume and more 'global' in their scope. Current patterns of migration are alsoincreasinglydifferentiated,withpopulationflowsencompassingacombinationofpermanentresidents,skilledlabour,refugees,asylumseekers,economicmigrantsandstudents(seealsoBauböck,2015).AlsoevolvingrapidlyistheagestructureofWesternsocietiesasthenumbersof older people within the population continues to grow. The regionmost affected by thistrendisEuropewhereitisprojectedthatby2050olderpeoplewillconstitutemorethanoneinthreeofthepopulation,outnumberingchildrenbynearlytwo-and-a-halftimes(Champion,2005: 109). Part of the explanation for this aging of the population is the simple fact thatpeoplearenowlivinglonger.However,anarguablymoreimportantfactoristhe'well-below-replacement' rates of fertility now being recorded in many European countries, which isleading to a drastic reduction in the proportion of younger people within the population(Champion, 2005: 100). This latter demographic change is often linked to the overall in

5

traditionalfamilystructuresandhouseholdpatterns,andalsototheincreasingfeminizationofthe labour market (Castells, 2010: xxii) - developments that, in turn, have far-reachingimplicationsforpatternsofearlysocialisationamongchildren(Giddens,2001:63). Theseheadlinedemographic changeshavecoincidedwithmanifolddevelopments inthe spatial organisation of societies.While therewasmuch talk during the 1970s and early1980s of howWestern societies were witnessing a clear decline in the size of their urbanpopulations, and how this marked a shift from the age of urbanization to that of counter-urbanization(seee.g.Berry1976),recentresearchsuggeststhatthesituationisslightlymorenuanced(Mitchell,2004).First,inthecaseofmanyEuropeancountries,bythelate1980sthetrendof counter-urbanizationhad turnedback tooneofurbanization, and, indeed, in somecasesurbanizationhadremainedthedominanttrendthroughout.Second,inmanyinstances,urban to rural movement has been in the form of 'decentralization' or 'suburbanization',where the population shift is concentrated in semi-rural areas bordering the metropolitancentres. Third, and most significant, the general narrative of counterurbanization disguiseddifferentmigratorytrendsamongdifferentagegroups.Theevidencesuggeststhattheurban-ruralmovehasbeenonepredominantlymadebyolder generations,while the trendamongyounger people throughout recent decades has been one of persistent out-migration fromruralareas.Theeffectofthishasbeentopolarizethepopulationprofilesofruralandurbanareas(Woods,2005:78-83). Furthermore,changesinthespatialorganisationofsociety,combinedwithsignificanttechnological advances, have led to fundamental changes in the ways in which people livetheir lives and the nature of the social relations in which they participate. An increase inpersonalmobility,duemostlytowidercarownershipandbetterinfrastructure,hasledtolivesthatspanever-widergeographicareas.This,inturn,hashadconsequencesforthemannerinwhichpeopleengagewitharangeofcoreservicesandhascontributedtothetrendofservice-rationalizationwithin urban centres (Bowler, 2005, 241-2).Mobility and technology are alsothemes thatprovideabackdrop to thechangeswitnessedacrossmanyWestern societies inthe nature of civil society (Castells, 2000; 2004). Overall, the trend is one of decliningengagement in civic life and in informal patterns of social interaction, and towards thinner,moreformalisedandmoreindividualisticformsofengagement(Putnam,2002).Thelatterareconsideredas lessconducivetothepromotionofsocialcapitalandthebondsofsocialtrust,solidarity and reciprocity that areassociatedwith it (Putnam,1993:177).At the same time,however,thespreadofdigitalnetworkingtechnologiesandtheassociatedriseofthe‘networksociety’ promotes the development of novel configurations of social and organisationalrelations resulting in ‘a real virtuality integrated with other forms of interaction in anincreasinglyhybridizedeverydaylife.’(Castells2010:xxix).2.2EconomictransformationUnderpinning a number of the trends discussed above are a series of economictransformations.First,recentdecadeshavewitnessedfundamentalchangesinthestructureofWesterneconomies,astheyhavemovedawayfromtraditionalarrangementsbasedprimarilyon industrialproduction,and towardsnewoneswhere informationand formsofknowledgeunderpineconomicgrowth.Theemergenceofthisneweconomicsystem- labelledaseitherthe'post-industrialeconomy'orthe'knowledge;economy'(Smart,2011;Giddens,2003:54)-hashadasignificant impactontheoccupationalstructureofWesternsocieties. Increasingly,employment in such societies is dominated by professional, administrative and managerialoccupations, while manual forms of employment have receded drastically. The result are

6

societieswhere economic activity is no longer focusedprimarily on the 'physical productionand distribution ofmaterial goods', but on 'their design, development, marketing, sale andservicing'(Giddens,2003:378). To a large extent, the structural changes described above, are tied to the widerprocessofeconomicglobalizationwhichhasstimulatedashiftfromanageofdistinctnationaleconomies towardsonecharacterizedbyan increasingly interconnectedand interdependentglobaleconomy(REFs).Transnationalcorporationsareconsideredasoneofthemaindriversof this change through their promotionof globalisedproduction chains (Castells 2003: 319).Theemergenceoftransnationalcorporationsalsohighlightsthesignificantdegreeofopennessin contemporary trade and financial markets, which arises from the move towards de-regulation,privatisationandliberalisation(REFs).Technologicaladvancementisanotherfactorthat has stimulated the move towards greater economic interdependence. Much of theinfrastructure on which the globalized economy now depends for its day-to-day operationcentresonthevariousdevelopmentsininformationandcommunicationtechnologywitnessedoverrecentdecades(Castells2003:311).

In terms of social impact, many scholars suggest that economic globalisation hasexacerbatedinequalitiesandregionaldisparities,withtheimpactbeingfelt inbothruralandurbanlocations,butwiththechallengeofrespondingarguablybeingmoreacuteinruralones(REFs).Theabilityofthestatetorespondtosuchprocesses,byinvestingindecliningregions,isalso constrained due to global trading rules and competition policies (Keating, 2013: 56).Furthermore, despite the undoubted influence of the digital revolution, the notion of‘technological inequality’ remains a reality in many contexts (Castells 2010 xviii), and oftenservestoexacerbatesocio-economicexclusion,bothbetweenandwithinstates(Smart2011:xxxii).2.3PoliticaltransformationNo lesssignificantarethefar-reachingpoliticalchangesassociatedwiththeprocessof ‘statetransformation’(Sorensen,2006),whichhasgivenrisetodebatesregardingthefutureofthestateasthecentrallocusforpoliticalactivity.Forsome,theimplicationsofglobalizationaresoextensivethattheageofthestateshouldbeseenascomingtoanend(Ohmae1995).Atthesametime,othersinsistonthecontinuedrelevanceofthestate(Mosley2011:111),andarguethatwhatweareactuallywitnessingisamovetowardsnewmodesofstateauthority(Sassen2011:81). Inthiscontext,theemergenceof'newgovernance'isseenassignificant.Itisclaimedthat social and economic regulation and coordination is no longer based on traditionalhierarchical state structures, but rather has broadened outwards to encompass a range ofcomplexnetworks.These includevariousappointed,arms-length,bodies,butalso toprivatecorporations and civil society organizations (Rhodes, 1997). Therefore, the process ofdevelopingandthenimplementingpublicpolicyhasevolvedtobeonewhere‘governmentsdonotsimplytakedecisionsandthenenforcethemwithstatepower’,butratherspendagreatdeal of time ‘negotiating with other organizations, non-governmental and governmental, inordertoknittogetheragreedcoursesofaction’(Colebatch,2004:78).Asaresultthereisanincreasingrecognitionthat ‘elected leadersandgovernmentofficialsareplayers inthegameratherthanthedriversoftheengine’(Colebatch,2004:79).

7

The traditional model of state authority has also been transformed due to theemergenceof 'multi-levelgovernance'andthediffusionofpoliticalpowertootherterritoriallevels – bothup to the to supranational and international bodies at the regional and globallevels,andalsodowntosub-stateregionalandnationalunits (Schakeletal2015;PierreandPeters,2000).Theextentofthelatterischaracterisedbythe‘eraofregionalization’witnessedinWesternEuropethathasinsomeinstancesbeenfuelledbypoliticalregionalism(Hoogheetal2010).3.MethodologyTheremainderofthispaperexploresthetwohypotheses,derivedfromthediscussionabove:one relating to the typesof factors identified in current language revitalisation strategies asbeingkeydeterminantsoflinguisticvitality,andasecondrelatingtotheextenttowhichsuchstrategies reflect on the linguistic implications of different forms of contemporary socialchange.Inthecaseofthefisthypothesis,wepositthatlanguagerevitalizationstrategieswillreflecttheacademicliteratureonlanguageshiftandlanguagerevitalisationdiscussedabove.Weconsiderthefollowingtobemainfactorsidentifiedinthatbodyofliteratureasbeingkeydeterminants of a language’s level of vitality: demographic factors; sociolinguistic factors;political-institutional factors; socio-economic factors; psychological factors; and linguisticfactors. Given the emphasis placed on these factors within the research literature, theexpectationisthattheywillalsofeatureprominentlyinthepolicymaterial.Inthecaseofthesecond hypothesis, we posit that if the language revitalization strategies reflect the keydeterminants of linguistic vitality, theywill also demonstrate evidence of reflection on howdifferent forms of contemporary social change influence linguistic vitality. As established,contemporary language revitalization efforts are conducted against a backdrop of manifoldand far-reaching social, economic and political changes that encompass societies becomingincreasinglymobileandfeaturenovelmodesofinteractionbetweenpeople;theireconomiesbeing increasingly interconnected; and their governance structures increasingly complex.Given that language is essentially a social phenomenon,wewould expect reflection on theimplications of currentmajor changes in how people live their lives and interact with eachothertofeatureinpolicydocumentsrelevanttolanguagerevitalizationThese hypotheses are examined by focusing in detail in this paper on the languagerevitalization policy strategies of twoUK-based case studies –Welsh inWales andGaelic inScotland. This represents a first step in an investigation that, in due course, will extend toencompassothercases.Thesetwocaseshavebeenselectedfornowonthebasisoftwokeyfactors.First,despitedifferencesbetweentherelativepositionofWelshinWalesandGaelicinScotland,thetwoarecaseswherethereareactiveandongoingpolicyeffortstopromotetheprospectsofminority languagesandwhere therearesimilarities in the typesof instrumentsthat are available to sub-state governments as part of their efforts to pursue languagerevitalisation. They therefore allow us to examine the extent to which current languagerevitalization policy programmes engage with different determinants of linguistic vitality.Second, they are also caseswheremany of the key social, cultural, demographic, economicand political changes that are of interest are clearly evident, thus providing valuableopportunitiestoassessthelevelofreflectiononthepartof languagepolicymakerswiththeimplicationsofsuchtrends.

The two hypotheses are examined in the following section on the basis of evidence

gathered by utilising content analysis methods. Following Holsti (1969:14), we understandcontentanalysisasatechniquefordrawinginferencesby'systematicallyidentifyingspecifiedcharacteristicofmessages.' Thismeans thatwedonotviewcontentanalysisasa technique

8

that is solely concernedwith the analysis of 'manifest content'; rather it also allows for theanalysisofmore'latentcontent'-thatis,'meaningsthatliebeneaththesuperficialindicatorsofcontent'(Bryman,2012:290;seealsoKrippendorf,2004;andNeuendorf,2005).Intextualterms,contentanalysisisnotamethodthatislimitedtothecountingofcertainkeywordsorphrases:itcanalsoencompasstheidentificationofthemes,ideasordispositionswithinatext.Insum,contentanalysiscanentailastrong interpretiveelement (Bryman,2012:297-8),andgiventhisweviewitasanappropriatemethodtoadoptforthepurposeofthisstudy. The methodology was applied to analyse the main language revitalization policystrategies of theWelsh and Scottish Governments. For this paper, this entailed twoWelshGovernment documents 'Iaith Pawb' (Welsh Assembly Government, 2003) and 'A LivingLanguage: A Language for Living' (Welsh Government, 2012) and one Scottish document,'GrowthandImprovement'(BòrdnaGàidhlig,2012),producedbytheagencyresponsiblefortheGaeliclanguage,BòrdnaGàidhlig.2Thesepolicydocumentswerereadcloselyinordertoidentifysectionsoftextthat includedcontentrelevanttothemainconcernsofthepaper:(i)contentthatincludedreflectiononfactorsthatinfluencealanguage'slevelofvitality;and(ii),content thatdemonstratedengagementwith the linguistic implicationsofdifferent formsofcontemporarysocial,economicandpoliticalchange.Theidentifiedsectionswerethendividedinto'quasi-sentences'-individualsectionsoftexts(i.e.partsofsentences)thataretheverbalexpressionofasinglethemeoridea(Chaney,2015).Dividingthetextinthismannercontrolledfor long sentences that containmultiple relevant themesorarguments.3Subsequently,eachquasi-sentence was classified using two deductive coding schemes: one that listed factorsrelevanttoanassessmentoflanguagevitality;andasecondthatlistedthemainexamplesofcontemporary social change. Both coding schemes were developed on the basis of anextensivereviewoftherelevantliteratures.Thedatagatheredthroughthecodingprocesswasthen loggedfor lateranalysisondistinctcodingschedules (createdusingMicrosoftExcel). Inordertoincreasethereliabilityofthedata,thecodingprocesswasundertakenseparatelybyboth authors.Divergent viewson the codingwere then resolvedbydiscussionbetween thecoders.SPSSsoftwarewassubsequentlyutilisedtoanalysethedata.4.AnalysisofFindings4.1LanguagerevitalisationstrategiesandlinguisticvitalityThere is clear evidence that both the Welsh and Scottish language revitalization policydocumentsengageconsistentlywiththekeydeterminantsof linguisticvitalityemphasised intheresearchliterature.Firstly,whenthegeneralpatternacrossthedifferentpolicydocumentsis considered, we find numerous references to each type of vitality factor identified in theliterature(Figure1).Political-institutionalfactors,relatingtothelevelofsupportaccordedtoalanguagebygovernmentaswellasotherprominent institutions,emergeasclearly themostsalient(635quasi-sentences,33%oftotal); followedbysociolinguisticfactors,relatingtothe

2TheBòrdisanon-departmentalpublicbodyestablishedbytheGaelicLanguage(Scotland)Act2005.Thearrangements forWelsh languagepolicywere similar to theScottisharrangementsprior to2012whentheBwrddyr IaithGymraeg,astatutorybodyestablishedbytheWelshLanguageAct1993,wasdissolved due to enacting theWelsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 and the establishment of theWelshLanguageCommissioneroffice.3Exampleofsentencethat includesdifferentquasi-sentences isas follows: “Aim: increase intheuseand visibility of theWelsh language in all aspects of everyday life, includingwork, leisure and socialactivities’(WelshAssemblyGovernment2003:11).

9

level of usemadeof the language in different domains (582quasi-sentences, 33%of total);demographic factors, relating to the numbers that speak as well as their distributionthroughoutthepopulationandacrossthegenerations(243quasi-sentences,14%oftotal);andpsychological factors, relating to the attitudes of different individuals and communitiestowards the language as well as the level of status or prestige attributed to it (217 quasi-sentences,12%oftotal).Slightlylesssalient,butatthesametime,clearlypresentinthepolicydocumentswerereferencestosocio-economicfactorsrelatingtotheprofessionalstatusandthematerialwealthpossessedbyspeakersof the language (66quasi-sentences,3%of total)andlinguisticfactors(19quasi-sentences,1%oftotal).

When we break the data down to a country-by-country level we see slightly different

patterns emerging from the Welsh and Scottish documents (Figure 2). In terms of thedocumentationrelatingtotheWelshlanguage,wecontinuetoseereferencestoeachtypeoffactoridentifiedintheliterature.Moreover,weseethatpolitical-institutionalfactorscontinuetoberegardedasthemostsalient(37%ofquasi-sentences);followedbysociolinguisticfactors(33%),demographicfactors(16%)andpsychologicalfactors(9%);withsocio-economicfactors(5%) and linguistic factors (0.5%) again being the least salient factors. In terms of thedocumentationrelatingtoGaelic,weseethatsociolinguisticfactors(35%ofquasi-sentences)are slightly more salient than political-institutional factors (34%); followed by psychologicalfactors (21%), demographic factors (8%) and finally linguistic factors (3%). There are noreferences to socio-economic factors in the Scottish documentation. This general level datapoints to the following similarities and differences: while political-institutional factors andsociolinguisticfactorsareorderedslightlydifferentlyinthedocumentationforeachcase,theyareemphasisedtoasimilardegrees(eachcategoryrepresentingbetween33%and37%ofthequasi-sentences); there is more emphasis in the Welsh documentation than the Scottishdocumentation on demographic factors (16% > 8%) and socio-economic factors (5% > 0%);there ismuchmoreemphasis in theScottishdocumentation than theWelshdocumentationonpsychologicalfactors(21%>9%).

Further insight intothecomparativeapproachesofWelshandScottishpolicymakersare

gainedbyfocusingonthemoredetaileddatagatheredinrelationtothegeneralvitalityfactorsdiscussed above. First, while the category of political-institutional factors is emphasised tosimilardegreesinbothcases,asFigure3demonstrates,thetendencyinScotlandisforthistoequate primarily to an emphasis on the role of public sector bodies (65% of referencesrelevant to the category of political-institutional factors). In theWelsh context, the role ofpublic sector bodies is also emphasised (38% of relevant references), yet here we see arelativelysimilarlevelofemphasisontheroleofregionalgovernment(33%).Second,whileasimilar level of emphasis is placed on the general category of sociolinguistic factors in bothcases,andalso,whileeducationissingledoutinbothcasesasthemostimportantdomainforlanguage use (Figure 4), this trend is even more pronounced in Scotland (41% of relevantreferences,comparedwith28%forWales).Atthesametime,intheWelshcontext,thereisatendencytoplaceagreateremphasisonlanguageusewithinsocialorinformaldomains(10%ofrelevantreferences,comparedwith3%forScotland)and,significantly,onlanguageuse inrelation to online and digital media (11% of relevant references, compared with 2% forScotland). Thirdly,with regards to demographic factors, Figure 5 demonstrates that the ageprofileofspeakers(i.e.theneedforahealthyspreadofspeakersacrossdifferentgenerationsand in particular among younger generations) is the aspect emphasisedmost often in bothcases, and that this happens to similar degrees (35% of relevant references for Scotland,comparedwith30%forWales).Atthesametime,weseethatthereisatendencyinScotlandtoplacemoreofanemphasisontheabsolutenumberofspeakersavailable(24%ofrelevant

10

references,comparedwith7%forWales),whilethereisatendencyinWalestoplacemoreofan emphasis on these speakers as a proportion of the overall population (12% of relevantreferences,comparedwith3%forScotland)

IntheWelshcase,itisalsopossibletoconsideranychangesinemphasisovertime,bycomparing the data for Iaith Pawb (2003) with that forA Living Language: A Language forLiving (2012). In bothdocuments,we findnumerous references to almost all of the generalfactorshighlighted in theacademic literature (Figure6) – theonlyexceptionbeing linguisticfactors (only2quasi-sentences in2003and5 in2012).At the same time,wesee significantvariation in termsof the salienceofdifferent typesof factorswithineachdocument.Firstly,betweenIaithPawbandALivingLanguage:ALanguageforLivingweseetheemphasisplacedon sociolinguistic factors (use of the language) increasing by 26 percentage points and theemphasis onpsychological factors (attitudes towards the language and its status) increasingevenfurtherby48percentagepoints.Secondly,weseeasubstantialdecreaseintheemphasisplacedondemographicfactors(-30%),political-institutionalfactors(-48%)andsocio-economicfactorsdecreasingsubstantially(-68%). We also see significant variations when we drill down into the more detailed datagatheredinrelationtoeachofthegeneralvitalityfactorsinbothdocuments.Forexample,inthecaseofsociolinguisticfactors(Figure7)weseeastrikingdecreaseintheemphasisplacedonlanguageuseinrelationtoeducation(-59%),butatthesametimeasubstantialincreaseintheemphasisplacedonlanguageuseindomainssuchasthefamilyhome(178%increase)andin contexts such as when socialising (53% increase) accessing services (200% increase) andwhenusingsocialanddigitalmedia(471%increase).Inthecaseofpolitical-institutionalfactors(Figure8)weseeasizabledecreaseintheemphasisplacedontheroleofregionalgovernment(-65%) and also on the role of different public sector bodies (-48%). Finally, in the case ofdemographic factors (Figure 9), while the salience of ‘age profile of speakers’ holds at arelativelysimilar levelbetween2003and2007(33and28referencesrespectively),weseeasignificant decrease in the emphasis placed on ‘speakers as a proportion of the overallpopulation’(-59%),‘areaswithahighdensityofspeakers’(-54%)andon‘emigration’(-64%).

Insummary,theforgoinganalysissupportsHypothesis1anddemonstratesthatthetypes

of factors emphasized in the policy documentation as being key determinants of linguisticvitalitydoreflectmanyofthefactorsidentifiedintheresearchliteratureonlanguageshiftandlanguagerevitalization.Atthesametime,theanalysisalsodemonstratesthatthereisacleartendencyfortheamountofemphasisthatisplacedonthesedifferentfactorstovary,notonlybetweendifferentlanguagepolicysettings,butalsoovertimewithinthesamesetting.4.2LanguageRevitalisationandSocialTransformationThefindingsrevealamuchmorelimitedlevelofengagement,bothintheWelshandScottishpolicydocuments,withthelinguisticimplicationsofmajorcontemporarysocial,economicandpolitical changes Again, we begin by looking at the general pattern across the differentdocuments. The documents were analysed according to three general categories – socio-demographicchange,economicchangeandpoliticalchange–andquasi-sentencesrelevanttoeach of these were found across the documents. However as Figure 10 demonstrate thedistribution was heavily weighted towards the category of socio-demographic change (86quasi-sentences,88%of total).Only5quasi-sentences thatwere relevant to thecategoryofcontemporary economic changewere identified and only seven quasi-sentences relevant to

11

the category of contemporary political change.4 Yet when we go on to focus solely on thereferences relevant to the category of socio-demographic change, we again see that thedistributionisheavilyweightedinoneparticulardirection(Figure11).Here,thesub-categoryof‘increaseduseofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)’was,bysomedistance,themostsalient,accountingfor36%oftherelevantquasi-sentences.Thiswasthenfollowed,a long way behind, by several references to ‘urbanization’ (15% of quasi-sentences),‘populationmovement’(15%)andto‘theemergenceofvirtualsocialnetworks’(12%ofquasi-sentences).Furtherdown,wethengetmuchmore limitedengagementwiththemessuchas‘increase in formal/organized forms of social interaction’ (8%), ‘decline in informal forms ofsocialinteraction’(4%)and‘counter-urbanization’(5%).Therefore,whenthedocumentationisconsidered all together, the level of engagement with the linguistic implications ofcontemporarysocialchange,bothintermsofitsvolumeandbreadthappearsquitelimited.

Inordertomeaningfullycomparetherespective levelsofengagementdemonstrated

byWelshandScottishpolicymakers,andcontrolforthefactthattheoverallanalysisincludedlookingat twodocuments inWalesandonlyone inScotland,wefocusedspecificallyononedocument fromeachcase:ALivingLanguage:ALanguage forLiving (2012)andGrowthandImprovement (2012). Upon taking this step, the picture that emerges is that the level ofengagementwiththeimplicationsofcontemporarysocialchangesisfargreaterintheWelshcontext, compared to theScottishone (Table1andFigure12).Outofa totalof58 relevantquasi-sentences,43comefromALivingLanguage:ALanguageforLiving,whileonly15comefromGrowthand Improvement.A sizableproportionof thisdifference isdue to the levelofengagementintheWelshdocumentwiththesub-categoryof‘increaseduseofICT’(16oftotal43quasi-sentences),andthecomparativelysparsereferencesintheScottishdocumenttothesame issue (only 2 relevant quasi-sentences). At the same time, the data also points to aslightlygreater levelofWelshengagementwithother formsof contemporary social change,for exampleurbanization (5 references), populationmovement (4 references) and increasedethnicdiversity (2 references).Nevertheless,while theoverallpicturepaintedby thedata isonewhereWelshlanguagepolicy-makersseemslightlymoreawaketotheimplicationsofourfast-changing social surroundings, it should be emphasized that in some specific instancesthereisevidencetosuggestthatScottishpolicy-makersare,arguably,slightlyahead(Table2).Wereferhere,inparticular,tothelevelofreflectionevidentintherespectivedocumentsonthelinguisticimplicationsofchangeswitnessedinpatternsofsocialinteraction.Suchchangeswerecapturedinthecodingmanualbysub-categoriessuchas‘increaseinorganizedformsofsocialinteraction’and‘emergenceofvirtualsocialnetworks’,andinbothinstancesweseetheScottishdocument,Growthand Improvement, performing strongly. Fivequasi-sentences arerecorded in each of these sub-categories, and this reflects the manner in which, overall,Growthand ImprovementdemonstratedastrongerawarenessthanALanguageforLiving:ALivingLanguageofthetrendtowardsamore‘networked’modelofsocialinteraction.54 The quasi-sentences relevant to the category of economic change included: one reference to the growth ofprofessionalandservice-basedemployment;onereferencetotheemergenceofthedigitaleconomy;onereferenceto thedecline in agricultural employment; and two generalized references to rural economicdecline. Thequasi-sentencesrelevanttothecategoryofpoliticalchangeincluded:onereferencetotheincreasedroleoftheprivatesector in public policy delivery; three references to the increased role of the third sector in public policy; tworeferences to the increased role of civil society in public policy; and one reference to the recent contraction inpublicexpenditure5ExamplesofrelevantreferencesfromGrowthandImprovementinclude:‘moreopportunitiesforcommunitiesandnetworksofGaelicspeakersofallkinds’(p.8);‘WewillsupportinitiativesthatstrengthendifferentkindsofGaeliccommunities’ (p.30);and, ‘othernetworksofGaelicspeakers,whichmight includeparentsataparticularGaeliceducationalestablishment,agroupthattakespartinaGaelicconversationeventandactiveparticipantsinonlineGaeliccommunities,willbesupportedtouseGaelicintheiractivities’(p.30).

12

Whenweturntoassess thesituation inWalesover time,bycomparing thedata forIaithPawb(2003)andALivingLanguage:ALanguageforLiving(2007),themuchgreaterlevelofengagementwiththe ‘increaseduseof ICT’comparedtoanyotherformofcontemporarysocial change continues (Figure 13). Nevertheless, across the two Welsh documents, thegeneralpicture thatemerges is similar toprecedingpoints–beyondthecaseof ICTwe findonly a limited amount of engagement with the linguistic implications of different forms ofcontemporarysocialchange.Indeed,itisstrikingthat,evenifwesetasidethelownumbersofreferencesthatmakeupthesampleofrelevantquasi-sentencesfromtheWelshdocuments,thereisnoclearpatterntowardsanincreasedengagementwithsocialchangeovertimeandcertain trendsbecomemorepronounced. Forexample, in relation to sub-categories suchas‘inwardmigration’,‘outwardmigration’,‘urbanization’and‘declineininformalformsofsocialinteraction’,weseeamarkeddecreaseinemphasisbetween2003and2007. In summary, the data discussed above points to a mixed situation with regards toHypothesis 2. It is clear that the policy documentation includes some reflection on thepotential linguistic implicationsofcertain formsofcontemporarysocialchange.However,aswasestablished,thevastmajorityofthisreflectioniscentredontheveryspecificsub-categoryof‘increaseduseofICT’.Beyondthis,thelevelofengagementwiththeimplicationsofotherforms of contemporary social, economic and political changes is, on the whole, limited.Moreover, this is a conclusion that holds when one compares between different languagepolicysettings,andalsowhenonecomparesovertimewithinthesamesetting.5.DiscussionThe paper began by hypothesising that language revitalisation policy programmes wouldemphasisetheparticulardeterminantsoflinguisticvitality,andwoulddemonstrateawarenessofthelinguisticimplicationsofcontemporarysocialtransformations.Weexpectedthefactorsemphasizedintheselectedpolicyprogrammesasbeingkeydeterminantsoflinguisticvitalityto reflect those highlighted in the research literature on language shift and languagerevitalization. We also expected that the policy programmes would include evidence ofreflectiononthelinguisticimplicationsofanumberofthemajorsocial,economicandpoliticalchangescurrentlybeingwitnessedacrossWesternsocieties.

Ourfindingssupporttheexpectationsbehindhypothesisonebutdemonstratelimitedsupport for hypothesis two. The analysis demonstrated that the language policy documentsfrom Scotland andWales featured clear engagementwith the key determinant of linguisticvitality highlighted in the research literature on language shift and language revitalisation.Withinthisanalysis,therewerehowevercleardifferencesintheattentiontoandstressplacedondifferent factorsbothbetweencasesandacross timewithin the samecase.At the sametime,whilethedocumentsdidfeaturesomeamountofreflectiononthe linguistic impactofmajor social, economic and political changes, and their implications for how languagerevitalisation policy should be developed, overall, this aspect over wasmuchmore limited.Moreover,thisconclusionheldbothacrossthecasesandacrosstimewithinthesamecase.

The findings in response tohypothesisone suggest that, inboth cases, thedifferentpatterns that emerged in terms of the different factors emphasised as key determinants oflinguisticvitalitycanbeexplainedthroughdeeperexaminationofthebroaderdemolinguisitc,sociolinguisticandpoliticalcontextwithinwhichthelanguagerevitalisationefforttakesplace.Our initial conclusions regarding how the findings above reflect particular language policy

13

circumstancespointtothefollowingfactors.ThetendencyinScotlandwastoplacemoreofanemphasisontheabsolutenumberofGaelicspeakerswhereas thetendency inWaleswas togive greater attention to theWelsh speakers as a proportion of the overall population. Onexaminingat thedata, this isunderstandableas thenumbersofGaelic speakers reported inthe2011Censuswere58,000or1.1percentof thepopulation,whereas inWales thesamedatarevealed562,016speakersor19percentofthepopulation.Moreover,thecontrasts indemographiccircumstancesalsohaveadirectimpactonthedifferencesbetweenthelanguagerevitalisation efforts in both cases. For instance, the partial greater salience of political-institutionalfactorsintheWelshcase,andthegreatersalienceofsocio-linguisticfactorsintheScottish case, may reflect the more developed institutionalisation of arrangements forreversing language shift inWales, compared to themore initial stages of strategic languageplanninginScotland.Inthiscontext,thegreateremphasisinScotlandonpsychologicalfactorsmayreflectthemorerecentnatureofeffortstodevelopthevisibilityofthelanguageandtheefforts to project Gaelic as an aspect of Scottish cultural distinctiveness for the wholepopulation. As regards domains of language use, while education was the most importantdomain for both cases, its higher salience in Scotland can be understood by the efforts tocreate new speakers through the education system and the way in which education andbroadcastingweretheinitialgrowthareasoflanguageprovisionfromthe1980sonwardsandsustained efforts to strengthen the extent of provision (Robadsan 2006), with a GaelicEducationStrategyproducedin2013.WhiletheanalysisforbothWalesandScotlandpointedtoeducationasthemost importantdomainfor languageuse, themorefocusedapproach inScotland on education contrasts with the greater emphasis in the Welsh documents onlanguageusewithinotherdomains, forexample socialor informaldomainsandonline. ThiscanbeexplainedbythegrowingrecognitionintheWelshcontextthatlanguagerevitalisationeffortswith theeducationsystemat itscorealsodependonextensionandnormalisationoflanguageuseinotherdomains,particularlyinthesocialandleisurecontextsofday-to-daylife.

In addition to the broader demolinguisitc and sociolinguistic context, the political

context within which language revitalisation takes place also helps to explain the variationobserved in termsofkeydeterminantsof linguisticvitality. In theWelshcontext this canbeexemplified by the greater emphasis on demographic factors such as the existence of areaswithahighdensityofspeakersandemigrationevident inthe2003documentthanthe2012document. The Welsh language became a highly politicised issue from 2001 onwards. Themainsourcesofcontentionweredebatesregardingin-migrationtoWelsh-speakingareasthatled to tension between the political parties, and Labour and Plaid Cymru in particular.LanguagemovementscalledformeasurestorespondtomigrationintoWelsh-speakingareas,haltingoutwardmigrationandestablishingtheWelshlanguageastheprimarylanguageintheWelsh-speaking areas (Royles 2007). The consultative nature of the National Assembly forWales’ policy process in the early years of devolution meant that these debates had asignificantimpactontheAssemblycommitteepolicyreviewthatinformedthe2003AssemblyGovernmentActionPlan.By2012,thenatureofthediscussionsurroundingthelanguagewaslesscontestedandtheWelshLanguageMeasure2010createdthepotentialforgreaterpublicsectorprovisionofservicesthroughthemediumofWelsh,evidencedinthegreateremphasisplacedonaccessingservices.Itseemsthereforethattheimmediatepoliticalcontextinwhichdocuments are constructed canalso influence the interpretationof the keydeterminantsoflinguisticvitality.

Explaining why the extent to which reflection on the implications of major social

changes for language revitalisation in the policy programmes analysedweremore limited isdifficult.Nevertheless,itseemssignificantthatthiswasthefindingbothacrossthecasesand

14

acrosstimewithinthesamecase.Thefindingsforthesecondhypothesisaresurprisinggiventhe extent of attention to key determinants of linguistic vitality and the way in which, asdiscussed earlier in the paper, major social changes have substantial implications for howpolicy makers engaged in developing contemporary language revitalization strategiesapproachtheirwork.Onewouldhaveexpected,forinstance,evidenceofgreaterawarenessofhowchanges intermsofwhomakeupthepopulationofWestern industrialsocieties,wherethesepeopleliveandhowtheyinteractwitheachother,andthususetheirlanguage(s),mayimpingeonlanguagerevitalisationispursued.Itsuggeststhatfurtherinvestigationoflanguagerevitalisation strategies developed by other substate governments is required in order tounderstandwhetherthesetendenciesaremorewidespread.6.ConclusionThis article set out to contribute towards addressing the disparity between the lack ofacademic research focused on understanding language policy as a particular area of publicpolicy, and thegrowing centralityof languagepolicy to theday-to-dayoperationofmodernstates.Ithassoughttopromoteapoliticalscienceapproachtoanalysinglanguagepolicy,anddidsobyadoptingcontentanalysismethodstoallowforasystematicexaminationoflanguagerevitalisationstrategiesofsub-stategovernments.

Theinterpretivecontentanalysismethodologyhasenabledustoexamineindetailtheframingofthekeystrategydocumentsproducedbydevolvedgovernments inordertoguidetheir language revitalisation efforts. The focus on the initial stages of the policy process, byinvestigating general strategic documents relating to language revitalisation, rather than amore traditional policy evaluation approach focused on implementation and output can bejustified. The types of strategy documents analysed provide an insight into the mainassumptions and priorities that, in due course, help to shape the substantive details ofgovernmentpolicy,andasaresult,theyrepresentanimportantpartofthepolicyprocess..

The approach adopted has also highlighted the lack of engagement on the part of

language policy makers with the potential linguistic impact of major social, economic andpolitical changes, and their implications for how language revitalisation efforts should bedevelopedandimplemented.Furtherworkwouldbebeneficial inordertoestablishwhetherthe lack of engagement with social change highlighted in this paper is replicated in othercontexts. Significantly, thenatureof the researchmethodologywouldbe suitable for suchatask. Indeed, its quantitative nature could allow for comparison across a large number ofcases.

Finally,theverylimitedengagementwithinthepolicydocumentswiththeimplications

of the different forms of social change witnessed in Western societies today point to twoimportantchallenges.Thefirstistheextenttowhichtheacademicresearchonlanguagepolicyandplanningitselfengagestheimplicationsofsuchsignificanttransformations.Furtherworkwouldbebeneficialtoestablishwhethertheweaknessidentifiedinthepolicydocumentationreflectsabroaderweakness in theacademic literatureon languagepolicyandplanning.Thesecondchallenge is that,given languagepolicy's lackofprofileamongpublicpolicyscholars,policy-makersmayfindthemselvespartly isolateddueto limitedacademicengagementwiththebigquestionsfacingthispolicyareaassocietiescontinuetoevolve.Thissetsthechallengeof seeking to strengthen the integration between how major changes currently beingwitnessesacrossWesternsocietiesareconsideredinpolicyprogrammesingeneralwithworkintheparticularfieldoflanguagepolicy.

15

REFERENCESBaker,C. (2011).FoundationsofBilingualEducationandBilingualism (Clevedon:MultilingualMatters).Bauböck,R.(2015).‘MigrationandthePorousBoundaryofDemocraticStates’inS.Leifbfried,E. Huber, M. Lange, J.D. Levy, F. Nullmeier, J. D. Stephens (eds) The Oxford Handbook ofTransformationsoftheState(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Bauman(2000).LiquidModernity(Cambridge:PolityPress).Beck,U.(1992).RiskSociety.(London:SAGEPublications).Bell,D.(1973).TheComingofthePost-IndustrialSociety(London:BasicBooks).Berry,B.J.(1976).UrbanizationandCounterurbanization(BeverlyHills,CA:Sage).Bowler,I.(2005).'RuralAlternatives',inDaniels,P.etal(eds)HumanGeography:IssuesfortheTwenty-FirstCentury(Harlow,Essex:PearsonEducation),229-45.BòrdnaGàidhlig(2012).NationalGaelicLanguagePlan2012-2017-GrowthandImprovement(Inverness:BòrdnaGàidhlig).Castells, M. (2003). ‘Global Informational Captialism’, in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds) TheGlobalTransformationsReader(Cambridge:Polity).Castells,M.(2004).ThePowerofIdentity:TheInformationAge-Economy,Society,andCulture(Oxford:Blackwell).Castells,M.(2010).TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety(Oxford:Blackwell).Castles,S.andMiller,M.J.(2003).TheAgeofMigration:InternationalPopulationMovementsintheModernWorld(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).Champion, T. (2005). 'Demographic Transformations', in Daniels, P. et al (eds) HumanGeography:IssuesfortheTwenty-FirstCentury(Harlow,Essex:PearsonEducation),87-112.Chevrier,M. (2003). 'ALanguagePolicy foraLanguage inExile', in Larivée,P. (ed.)LinguisticConflict and Language Laws: Understanding the Quebec Question (Basingstoke: PlgraveMacmillan).Colebatch,H.(2004).Policy(Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress).Cooper, R. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

16

Edwards, J. (1992). 'Sociopolitical Aspects of Language Maintenance and Loss: Towards aTypology of Minority Language Situations', in W. Fase, K Jaspaert and S Kroon (eds).MaintenanceandLossofMinorityLanguages(Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishing).Fishman,JoshuaA. (1964). ‘LanguageMaintenanceandLanguageShiftasaFieldofEnquiry’.Linguistics2/9:32-70.Fishman, J. A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations ofAssistancetoThreatenedLanguages(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters).Giddens,A.(1991).TheConsequencesofModernity.(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress).Giddens,A.(2003).Sociology(Cambridge:PolityPress).Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., and Taylor, D.M. (1977). ‘Towards a Theory of Language in EthnicGroup Relations’, in H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (London:AcademicPress).Grenoble, L. and Whaley, L. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to LanguageRevitalization(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Grin,F.(2003).LanguagePolicyEvaluationandtheEuropeanCharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguages(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).Hinton,L.(2011).'RevitalizationofEndangeredLanguages',inP.K.AustinandJSallabank(eds)TheCambridgeHandbookofEndangeredLanguages(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),291-311.Hooghe,L.,Marks,G.andSchakel,A.H.(2010).TheRiseofRegionalAuthority:AComparativeStudyof42Countries(London:Routledge).Keating,M.(2013).RescalingtheEuropeanState(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).KaplanR.B.andR.B.Baldauf(1997).LanguagePlanning:FromPracticetoTheory(Clevedon:MultilingualMatters).Kymlicka,W.(1995).MulticulturalCitizenship(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).McLeod, Wilson (ed.) (2006). Revitalizing Gaelic in Scotland: Policy, Planning and PublicDiscourse(Edinburgh:DunedinAcademicPress).McRoberts,K.(2001).Catalonia(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Mitchell,C.(2004).'MakingSenseofCounterurbanization',JournalofRuralStudies,20/1:15-34Mosley, L. (2011). 'The Political EconomyofGlobalization', inD.Held andA.McGrew (eds),GlobalizationTheory:ApproachesandControversies(Cambridge:PolityPress),106-25.

17

Morris,D.(ed.)(2010).WelshintheTwenty-FirstCentury(Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress).Nettle,D.andS.Romaine(2000).VanishingVoices:TheExtinctionoftheWorld’sLanguages.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ohmae,K.(1995).TheEndoftheNationState:TheRiseofRegionalEconomies (London:TheFreePress).Patten,Alan(2001).‘PoliticalTheoryandLanguagePolicy’,PoliticalTheory,29(5):683-707.Patten, A. and W. Kymlicka (2003). Introduction: Language Rights and Political Theory:Contexts, Issues and Approaches', inW. Kymlicka and A. Patten (eds) Language Rights andPoliticalTheory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),1-51.Paulston, C. B., P. C. Chen and M. C. Connerty (1993). 'Language Regenesis: A ConceptualOverview of Language Revival, Revitalization and Reversal'. Journal of Multilingual andMulticulturalDevelopment14/4:275-86.Pierre,J.andPeters,B.G.(2000).Governance,PoliticsandtheState(Basingstoke:MacmillanPress).Putnam. R. D. (1993).Making DemocracyWork: Civic Traditions inModern Italy (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress).Putnam,R.D.andGoss,K.A.(2002).'Introduction',inR.D.Putnam(ed.),DemocraciesinFlux:TheEvolutionofSocialCapitalinContemporarySociety(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).Rhodes,R.A.W.(1997).UnderstandingGovernance(Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress).Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (London:BlackwellPublishing).Robadsan, B. (2006). ‘Foghlam Gaidhlig: bho linn gu linn’ in W. McLeod (ed.), RevitalisingGaelicinScotland:Policy,PlanningandPublicDiscourse(Edinburgh:DunedinAcademicPress).Royles, E. (2007). Revitalizing Democracy? Devolution and Civil Society in Wales (Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress).Sassen,S. (2011). ‘ThePlacesandSpacesof theGlobal:AnExpandedAnalyticTerrain’, inD.Held andA.McGrew (eds),Globalization Theory:Approaches andControversies (Cambridge:PolityPress).Schakel, A. H., Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (2015). ‘Multilevel Governance and the State’, in S.Leibfried,E.HuberandJ.Stephens(eds),TheOxfordHandbookofTransformationsoftheState(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),269-285.Smart,B.(2011). 'Post-IndustrialSocietyandInformationTechnology', inB.Smart(ed.),Post-IndustrialSociety(London:Sage).Sørensen,G.(2004).TheTransformationoftheState(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).

18

Spolsky,B.(2004)LanguagePolicy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Spolsky,B.(2009).LanguageManagement(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Strubell,M and Boix-Fuster, E. (eds) (2011).Democratic Politics for Language Revitalization:TheCaseofCatalan(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).Tsunoda, T. (2005). Language Endangerment and Language Revitalization (Berlin:Walter deGruyter).UNESCO (2003). Language Vitality and Endangerment: Report of Ad Hoc Expert Group onEndangeredLanguages.Availablefrom:http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerment_EN.pdf [Accessed: January2016]Urla, J. (2015). Reclaiming Basque: Language, Nation and Cultural Activism (Reno, Nevada:UniversityofNevadaPress).Weinreich,U. (1968).Languages inContact: FindingsandProblems. (TheHague:MoutondeGruyter.WelshAssemblyGovernment(2003).IaithPawb–ANationalActionPlanforaBilingualWales(Cardiff:WelshAssemblyGovernment).Welsh Government (2012). A Living Language: A Language for Living – Welsh LanguageStrategy2012-2017(Cardiff:WelshGovernment).Williams, C. H. (2007). Linguistic Minorities in a Democratic Context (Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).Williams,C.H.(2013).MinorityLanguagePromotion,ProtectionandRegulation:TheMaskofPiety(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).Woods, M. (2005). Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in RuralRestructuring(London:Sage).

19

Appendix:FiguresandTablesFigure1:Alldocuments:factorscitedasbeingrelevanttothelanguage'slevelofvitality

20

Figure2:WelshandScottishdocumentationcompared:factorscitedasbeingrelevanttothelanguage'slevelofvitality

21

Figure3:WelshandScottishdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttopolitical-institutionalfactors

22

Figure4:WelshandScottishdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttosociolinguisticfactors

23

Figure5:WelshandScottishdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttodemographicfactors

24

Figure6:Welshdocumenationcompared:factorscitedasbeingrelevanttothelanguage'slevelofvitality

25

Figure7:Welshdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttosociolinguisticfactors

26

Figure8:Welshdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttopolitical-institutionalfactors

27

Figure9:Welshdocumentscompared:breakdownofreferencesrelevanttodemographicfactors

28

Figure10:Alldocuments:generalformsofsocialchangediscussed

29

Figure11:AllDocuments:formsofsocio-demographicchangediscussed

Table1:ALanguageforLivingcomparedwithGrowthandImprovement:overallnumberofreferencestocontemporarysocialchange

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid A Living Language: A

Language for Living 43 74.1 74.1 74.1

Growth and Improvement 15 25.9 25.9 100.0 Total 58 100.0 100.0

30

Figure12:ALanguageforLivingcomparedwithGrowthandImprovement:numberofreferencestodifferentformsofsocialchange

31

Table2:ALanguageforLivingcomparedwithGrowthandImprovement:numberofreferencestodifferentformsofsocialchange

The policy document from which the quasi-sentence comes

Total

A Living Language: A Language for

Living Growth and

Improvement The form of social, cultural, economic, political or technological change refrenced in the policy documents

Increased ethnic diversity 2 0 2 Intrastate migration 2 0 2 Outward migration 2 0 2 Urbanization 5 0 5 Counter-urbanization 1 0 1 Increase in organized forms of social interaction 2 5 7

Emergence of virtual social networks 5 5 10

Decline in significance of territory/'place' 2 0 2

Increased use of ICT 16 2 18 Growth of professional/service sectors 0 1 1

Emergence of digital economy 1 0 1

Increased role for private sector 1 0 1

Increased role for third sector 2 1 3

Increased role for civil society 2 0 2

Contraction of public expenditure 0 1 1

Total 43 15 58

32

Figure13:IaithPawbcomparedwithALanguageforLiving:numberofreferencestodifferentformsofsocialchange