![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines some of the linguistic and ideological tensions resulting from language shift and subsequent revitalisation, using Breton as a case study. As a result of the opening up of ideological spaces in discourses on what it means to be a Breton speaker in the twenty-first century, the appearance of so-called ‘new’ speakers highlights a number of points of contestation. Operating within contexts which are becoming increasingly ‘postvernacular’ [Shandler, J. (2004). Postvernacular Yiddish: Language as a performance art. The Drama Review, 48(1), 19–43; Shandler, J. (2006). Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular language and culture. Oakland: University of California Press] in nature, the use of Breton by these speakers can be viewed as more symbolic rather than communicative in many respects. Postvernacular use exists on a continuum of linguistic practice and vernacular use of Breton is still apparent, of course, and often indexed as the only ‘authentic’ and legitimate use of Breton. This article examines some alternative linguistic practices within the Breton-speaking community and how ‘new’ speakers attempt to find for themselves an ideological niche in this community.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was given as an invited contribution to the First Celtic Sociolinguistics Symposium at University College Dublin, 24–26 June 2015. The writing of this article has furthermore benefitted from ongoing discussions on the themes of ‘new speakers’ as part of the COST EU Action IS1306 entitled, ‘New Speakers in a Multilingual Europe: Opportunities and Challenges’. The author wishes to thank three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on the content and structure of the present article.
ORCiD
Michael Hornsby http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6075-5929