Practices and Perceptions Around Breton As a Regional Language Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
New speaker language and identity: Practices and perceptions around Breton as a regional language of France Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Merryn Davies-Deacon B.A., M.A. February, 2020 School of Arts, English, and Languages Abstract This thesis focuses on the lexicon of Breton, a minoritised Celtic language traditionally spoken in western Brittany, in north-west France. For the past thirty years, much work on Breton has highlighted various apparent differences between two groups of speak- ers, roughly equivalent to the categories of new speakers and traditional speakers that have emerged more universally in more recent work. In the case of Breton, the concep- tualisation of these two categories entails a number of linguistic and non-linguistic ste- reotypes; one of the most salient concerns the lexicon, specifically issues around newer and more technical vocabulary. Traditional speakers are said to use French borrowings in such cases, influenced by the dominance of French in the wider environment, while new speakers are portrayed as eschewing these in favour of a “purer” form of Breton, which instead more closely reflects the language’s membership of the Celtic family, in- volving in particular the use of neologisms based on existing Breton roots. This thesis interrogates this stereotypical divide by focusing on the language of new speakers in particular, examining language used in the media, a context where new speakers are likely to be highly represented. The bulk of the analysis presented in this work refers to a corpus of Breton gathered from media sources, comprising radio broadcasts, social media and print publications. Insights are also provided from interviews that were carried out with employees of Breton-language media to gain additional information on speakers’ individual practices and beliefs and complement the linguistic data. The findings show that in these contexts, speakers often avoid some of the more extreme features associated with the new speaker stereotype, and that medium and register can be relevant factors in what sort of lexicon is used; also, notably, the traditional dialects of Breton to a certain extent serve as target varieties for many new speakers, showing that the two groups are not as separate from each other has some research has implied, i Abstract and that the standard new speaker variety is not necessarily the most prestigious. New speakers, and others with new speaker characteristics, do not form a homogeneous community, but instead have diverse ways of speaking and engaging with Breton and the rest of its speaker population. ii Acknowledgements I have been fortunate to be able to undertake my PhD as part of a large multidiscip- linary project, and my first thanks must go to the MEITS team at QUB: especially to Janice Carruthers. I couldn’t have asked for a better supervisor (and choirmate), who has been constantly approachable, extremely easy to work with, and of course instru- mental in a number of major decisions made regarding the structure and direction of this thesis. Particular thanks also to my second supervisor, Mícheál Ó Mainnín, for his constant encouragement and especially for the insightful comments as I approached submission. It’s been a pleasure to work and share an office with the other members of the team, Deirdre, Daniel, and Robbie, as well as the other researchers who have joined us in the “cave” over the past three years. More generally, the insights into other lin- guistic disciplines and the additional opportunities I have been able to benefit from as part of MEITS have been invaluable, notably the chance to discuss my research with Doug Kibbee towards the end of the PhD, and the ability to undertake a placement at HarperCollins in the final stages. I must thank Wendy Ayres-Bennett for her sup- port as PI of MEITS, and without whom many of these opportunities would have been unavailable. Mersi bras/trugarez vras d’ar re am eus komzet ganto diwar-benn ar brezhoneg hag ar mediaoù; I owe a special debt of gratitude to my interview participants, who gra- ciously and enthusiastically gave up their time and invited me into their workplaces. The “minor” part of my research became much more significant (and enjoyable!) than I anticipated: Chapter 5 could have been at least twice as long as it ended up. Trugarez vras ivez da Jérémy Ar Floc’h en deus sikouret gant an treuzskrivañ. Over the past three years I have had the pleasure of discussing my work with other iii Acknowledgements scholars, who have invariably provided crucial information and important alternative perspectives. Many such interactions have taken place at conferences, but these con- nections have also in no small part been facilitated by the internet and the growing ability to share research online. I must therefore especially thank those who have been kind enough to share information by email, including Jean Le Dû, Mélanie Jouitteau, and Holly Kennard; and special thanks to a Twitter contact “on the ground”. At con- ferences, it was especially rewarding to be part of a recurrent panel on minoritised languages in social media, and particular thanks go to the other members of the ori- ginal group, Guillem Belmar Viernes, Maggie Bonsey, and Piotr Szczepankiewicz, and to our chair, Elin Haf Gruffydd Jones. I am also grateful to Fañch Bihan-Gallic forare- mark that was influential during the final editing process, and to Anthony Harveyfor his ongoing support and enthusiasm for my work, particularly those aspects outside the area of this thesis. Undertaking my PhD at QUB has been a delight; the school of AEL, and French Studies in particular, has been the friendliest university department I’ve yet encountered. Spe- cific thanks must go to the approachable and efficient administrative staff, especially Lynne Robinson, Tracy Duffy, and Linda Drain—and to those I got to know as fellow PhD students∗ and friends; in particular, Catherine, Daniel, Lauren, Mathew, Mike, Sarah, and Tom. My mother and grandmother have been constantly supportive, interested in my work, and accommodating of my brief visits home to Redruth. Tas vy, che a wrug desky dhebm fatel ajon ’gan tavajow bian dhe voas pojek; na via gwres gena vy tra veth a’n par ma hep hedna. Joan and David: thank you for welcoming me into the family. Andrew— the most unexpected finding of my PhD—thanks for being my best friend. ∗. Mais pas que [Quigley, 2019] iv Contents 1 Introduction: Research context and questions 14 1.1 Overview of the thesis and structure of the chapter ............. 14 1.2 French policy on regional languages ..................... 15 1.2.1 State language policy at a national level ............... 16 1.2.2 Language policy at the supranational level ............. 19 1.2.3 Language policy at the regional level ................ 20 1.2.4 Language policy, ideology, and approach to the standard ..... 24 1.2.5 Language policy: conclusion ..................... 26 1.3 Previous research on Breton and its varieties ................ 28 1.4 New speakers and “néo-bretonnants” .................... 30 1.4.1 The new speaker in sociolinguistic theory .............. 30 1.4.2 Concepts and stereotypes around the “néo-bretonnant” ...... 34 1.5 Breton-language media ............................. 40 1.6 Research questions ............................... 43 2 Methodology 46 1 2.1 Introduction ................................... 46 2.2 Corpus methodology .............................. 46 2.2.1 Data sources ............................... 47 2.2.1.1 Radio ............................. 48 2.2.1.2 Print journalism ....................... 49 2.2.1.3 Social media ......................... 50 2.2.2 Data collection methodology ..................... 52 2.2.2.1 Ethical considerations relating to online data ...... 54 2.2.3 Identifying words to tag ........................ 55 2.2.4 Outcome of the workflow ....................... 61 2.2.5 Determining validity among lexemes ................ 63 2.2.6 Categorising lexemes .......................... 65 2.2.6.1 Word origin .......................... 66 2.2.6.2 Semantic relationship with source word ......... 66 2.2.6.3 Polymorphemic words and multi-word expressions .. 66 2.2.6.4 Parts of speech ........................ 66 2.2.6.5 Attestation .......................... 67 2.2.6.6 Code-switching ....................... 67 2.2.6.7 Dialectal vocabulary ..................... 67 2.2.6.8 Orthographic modification ................. 67 2.2.6.9 Phonological modification ................. 67 2 2.2.6.10 Markers of explicitness of borrowing or coinage ..... 68 2.2.6.11 Other morphological information ............. 68 2.2.7 Background information on the three subcorpora ......... 68 2.3 Interview methodology ............................ 71 2.3.1 Determining participants ....................... 72 2.3.2 Recruiting participants ......................... 73 2.3.3 Theme of the interviews and language choice ............ 74 2.3.4 Questions asked ............................ 75 2.3.5 Analysis of the interviews ....................... 78 3 Contemporary Breton usage 1: Quantitative analysis of the corpus data 80 3.1 Introduction ................................... 80 3.2 Words and their origins ............................ 81 3.2.1 Makeup of the corpus and statistical information ......... 81 3.2.2 Parts of speech: influence of medium and register ......... 83 3.2.3 Origins of word elements ....................... 90 3.2.4 Summary ................................ 101 3.3 Dictionaries and other sources ......................... 102