Should we really standardise the Scots language?

While I understand this question on an academic level, in a practical sense it doesn't really make much sense to me. If a lack of standardisation precludes "language" from being a valid, official or functionally appropriate label, this would exclude many languages spoken around the world that have no standardised orthography, whose speakers get along with their language-ing just fine.

In his new book, Unlocking Scots: The Secret Life of the Scots Language, Clive Young presents a fresh and in-depth look into the language, its speakers and the culture which surrounds it.

If anyone is interested in learning more about Scots, I highly recommend the book, which covers everything from the unfortunate politicisation of Scots to, handily enough for this column, standardisation.

I asked Clive how he feels about the standardisation of Scots, and he said, “Standardisation, in my view, anyway, would focus only on the formal written language. Here Scots has a huge advantage in that there is already a surprisingly cohesive literary form to build on, complete with orthography, dictionaries, grammars etc.

"And you’ll know a group of Scottish worthies tried to create an updated standard from this in the 90s, which was pretty good but, before devolution, had no-one to champion it. The benefit of this approach is that it builds from what we’ve already got – cheaper and quicker – and links Scots more firmly to its impressive linguistic heritage.”

Some linguists take a prescriptivist approach, where the rules define the language and there is a reliance on standards, a correct, right or proper way to use and engage with language.

I'm much more a fan of a descriptivist methodology, where the rules are more flexible and dependent on the conventions of those using the language.

I take this approach with Scots, of course, but also English. Communication is the goal and purpose of language, as long as two or more people are able to convey their thoughts in an effective way, they're doing language right.

When I wrote about spelling and grammar pedantry being a form of prejudice that often comes from a desire to feel superior, some people were extremely angry at the very mention that having “better” grammar and spelling than someone didn’t inherently make them better than someone who either doesn’t know, or doesn't care about the rules as fervently as them. With regards to language, rules are meant to make things easier, to facilitate the learning, teaching and sharing of concepts and ideas. There are so many conventions that have been discarded or invented to suit the evolving needs of speakers, why should Scots be any different?

When coming from a monolingual perspective (particularly an anglocentric one), it’s easy to project your experiences with the one language you speak onto other languages.

This lack of experience can sometimes create a slightly limited perspective. How quickly we forget our history, how easy it is to assume that the way things appear to us now and what we currently experience is all that ever was, or ever could be.

A lack of standardised orthography does not always imply an absence of rules, or structure, just as it didn’t before the standardisation of English orthography. There are identifiable grammar conventions in Scots just as there are with most other languages, but in the words of Captain Barbosa in Pirates of the Caribbean, “The code is more like guidelines than actual rules.”

It’s important to contextualise the experiences of Scots speakers in order to more fully understand why the language is what it is. There is little to no formal education of the Scots language, most of it is learned either in a familial environment or through social learning. Would that there were the acceptance and celebration of Scots over the years to have an organic standard throughout the years, but due to the small matter of the attempted eradication of the language, that’s sadly not the case. When it comes to Scots, the lack of one single standardised orthography hasn’t come about from a lack of speakers or interest, but of infrastructure.

Were we to create a new and official standard for the Scots language, who do we put in charge of the development of a standard? Ayrshire speakers, Doric speakers? Speakers of insular Scots from Orkney or Shetland? Ulster Scots speakers?

Must we bend and stretch each dialect of Scots to fit one homogenous standard? Or is it possible for us to acknowledge the Scots language not as one swatch of cloth, but a patchwork, each stitch sewn using the admonishments of parents and the whisperings in the playground, each square no less valid than those surrounding it.

Clive continued to say: “But the really important point is that informal Scots writing (poetry, humour, artistic, dialect, experimental etc – all the good creative stuff) and speaking must be largely left alone. Creative folk might – and many probably would want to – draw from this enriched repertoire, but there’d be no obligation to buy. If rebels want to write in DIY orthography, or reject any standard entirely, good luck to them. One issue is there has been a sharp loss of literacy in Scots (i.e. less public familiarity with more traditional Scots writing, poetry, songs etc) over the last 30 years but I believe there is still plenty to build on and play with.”

The way I see it, language is a bit like music. Some people strictly follow the notes on the page, learning and adhering to the rules at any and all cost. Some play by ear and, even without the ability to articulate the complex systems they engage with in a virtuosic musical celebration. Often, we learn the rules and let them go as they become more comfortable and relaxed with language, an approach I see all the time with speakers of English. Native speakers are known to frequently split an infinitive, the passive voice is used all too often, and yet linguists and I both agree… the world still spins.

Every standard that exists was once just someone’s idea of what language should look like. Maybe it’s time for some new ideas.