1

ECPR Annual Conference 2016

DRAFT PAPER PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR PERMISSION

Language policy in multi-level systems: a historical institutionalist analysis

Elin Royles and Huw Lewis, Aberystwyth University

(ear@aber.ac.uk; hhl@aber.ac.uk)

Abstract Efforts are underway to develop a stronger political science perspective to analysing the practice of language policy and planning. This paper contributes to this endeavour by establishing a framework grounded in historical institutionalism to analyse how language policy choices are conditioned in the context of regional or minority languages in multi-level states by taking account of the impact of institutional arrangements at multiple levels (local, sub-state, state and international levels). In doing so, informed by historical institutionalism, the paper contributes to the emerging literature on state traditions and language regimes that, seeks to explain the implications of state traditions for language regimes. Indeed, this paper’s original contribution is to go further by developing an alternative approach to the use of historical institutionalist tools to examine regional or minority languages in the context of multi-level states. The merit of the framework is evaluated by applying it to analyse the language regime that has influenced policy decisions regarding the Welsh language in Wales. Overall, the paper’s original contribution is to develop the use of political science methods to analyse language policy, thus contributing to the overarching aim of establishing language policy as a distinct field of public policy. Introduction This paper has two aims. First, it seeks to develop a multi-level framework grounded in historical institutionalism to analyse the factors that condition the formulation of policy initiatives with regard to European regional and minority languages. Second, the paper pursues the broader aim of promoting language policy as a distinct field of public policy that calls for greater attention by political scientists. Language policy can be understood as a form of public policy that seeks to influence the nature of a society’s linguistic environment, and thus steer the patterns of language use amongst individuals (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Grin, 2003). Given the need to communicate with citizens, it is a policy field with which every modern state must engage in some way or another (Patten, 2001). No state can detach itself completely from the linguistic sphere - decisions must be made regarding which language(s) should be used within a range of domains within public administration and also spanning public media, road signs, town names, etc. (Kymlicka, 1995: 111; Carens, 2000: 77-8). Furthermore, debates regarding the exact nature of the language policies that should be adopted by states are beginning to claim an increasingly prominent position on the political agenda, both domestically and internationally. Growing trends

2

such as immigration, sub-state nationalism and cultural globalisation have underlined the extent that linguistic diversity characterises most modern societies. These circumstances have led to an increased awareness of the political, economic and cultural significance of language policy decisions taken by states (Patten and Kymlicka, 2003). However, despite its political salience, research by political science scholars that systematically seeks to study language policy as a distinct area of public policy is significantly more limited than would be expected. As Grin (2003: 38) argues, it is an area that 'ought to be approached in the same way as health, education, transport or energy policy.' Yet, in contrast to the extensive literature that focuses on these other fields, there is a dearth of research that seeks to grapple with the political origins of language policy, and that seeks to analyse how and why particular language policy choices are made. This paper contributes to the task of filling this lacuna by bridging between language policy analysis and the sphere of contemporary political science research. In doing so, the paper builds on the recent literature that has drawn on historical institutionalism to develop an analytical framework based on the twin concepts of state traditions and language regimes in order to analyse state language policy choices (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015). However, the paper refrains from simply applying this framework to other cases. Rather, it seeks to develop an alternative framework; one that is also based on the core tenents of historical institutionalism, but that aims to be more specifically attuned to analysing the particular factors that condition language policy choices taken with regard to non-state, regional or minority languages. The paper’s intention to develop a framework for analysing regional or minority languages is particularly important given that policy interventions aimed at recognising and supporting the prospects of such languages are now increasingly common across the world, and particularly so within Europe. Over the past few decades, initiatives with regard to European languages such as Catalan (Strubell and Boix-Fuster, 2011), Basque (Urla, 2015), Gaelic (McLeod, 2006) and Welsh (Morris, 2010) have gradually become more systematic and far-reaching in their scope, encompassing a range of regulatory, distributive and constituent instruments, and touching on key social domains, including the family home, the education system, the media, the economy and civil society (Williams, 2013). Much of this activity has been overseen by actors and institutions operating at the sub-state level. This reflects the radical expansion in regional autonomy across Western Europe in recent decades (Hooghe et al, 2010), with the establishment of sub-state tiers of government often an important catalyst for efforts to promote the prospects of various local or non-state languages (Williams, 2013). Yet, these sub-state initiatives have not been conceived and developed in isolation. Indeed, the emergence of multi-level governance patterns across much of Europe raises the prospect that, reflecting other domains, policy responses to regional or minority languages may be influenced by political dynamics at multiple different levels. In this context, therefore, of potential significance are state-level structures in the form of constitutional frameworks and intergovernmental relations, and continental or international level structures in the form of international agreements and international policy or advocacy networks. Consequently, the paper draws on historical institutionalism in order to develop a better understanding of the multi-level institutional factors that influence

3

language policy choices instituted with regard to European regional or minority languages. In terms of its structure, the paper is organised as follows. First, it outlines the means by which language policies have been analysed in the literature and introduces the emerging literature on state traditions and language regimes. Second, the paper builds on this work and outlines a framework for analysing language policy choices with regard to regional or minority languages communities that operate under conditions of multi-level governance. Third, the paper applies the analytical framework to evaluate the multi-level factors that have influenced the nature of the language policy regime that has emerged in a particular minority language context, that of Welsh in Wales. Finally, the paper concludes by pointing to the significance of the findings, both in terms of the implications of the framework for the understanding of language policy development in Wales, but also in terms of its broader relevance to analysing language regimes in other contexts. Language policy analysis and political science As indicated above, despite the political salience of language policy in many locations across the world, political scientists have, on the whole, been reluctant to engage with the subject in any detail. This does not mean that language policy is a subject that has not been the focus of a substantial amount of scholarly research. However, this research has tended to take place within other disciplinary contexts and therefore has not been specifically geared to the task of analysing the political origins of language policies and explaining why particular language policy decisions are taken. A substantial amount of the literature published to date concerning language policy is associated with the broad field of sociolinguistics. Much of this work has focused on the task of describing the consequences of different language policies. On the one hand, scholars have been concerned with the degree to which language policy choices promote certain linguistic processes, such as language spread, language shift and language death (e.g. Fishman 1991). On the other hand, they have been concerned with the degree to which language policy choices promote certain social changes, such as greater/lesser equality or greater/lesser discrimination (e.g. Tollefson 1991). Since the 1970s research by sociolinguists has also focused on the subject of language planning, understood as any deliberate effort, either by public bodies, corporations, community organisations or, indeed, parents, to influence the linguistic behaviour of others (Cooper, 1989; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). Yet, as Ricento (2006) argues, this work has focused mainly on conceptual and theoretical questions, for instance: the distinction between corpus, status and acquisition planning; the relationship between language planning and language policy; or the potential goals of language planning. Meanwhile, ‘what has not been much discussed is the practice of language planning, that is, the development, implementation, and evaluation of specific language polices’ (Ricento, 2006, 18, emphasis added).

Over the years there have been some limited efforts by social scientists working in other fields to draw on insights from public policy analysis in order to inform research on language policy. This has included contributions by scholars working in

4

fields such as economics (Grin 2003; Grin and Vaillancourt, 1999), communications (Gazzola, 2014) and geography (Williams, 2007, 2013). Yet, as Sonntag and Cardinal (2015: 12) observe, the emphasis in these works ‘has been on implementation and evaluation, not on the political origins of language policies.’ More recently, a body of literature has developed in the field of political theory that focuses on notions such as language rights, language equality and linguistic justice (see, e.g., De Schutter 2008; Patten 2001, 2003, Van Parijs 2011; see also Kymlicka and Patten, 2003 and Léger and Lewis 2016). Given its detailed discussions of issues such as the moral basis of language rights claims and the ethical merits of various language policy regimes, it is primarily concerned with evaluating the normative implications of different language policy choices, and therefore does not feature detailed examination of the politics surrounding those choices (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 12).

In summary, despite the existence of a relatively broad and multi-disciplinary body of literature that engages with the subject of language policy, a distinct political science perspective that can deepen our understanding of the political origins of language policies, and can explain why particular language policy decisions are taken, has been lacking. However, a significant step in this direction came with the recent publication of the edited volume State Traditions and Language Regimes (Cardinal and Sonntag, 2015). In this volume, political science theories and methods are utilised in order to develop an explanatory framework, based on the twin concepts of ‘state traditions’ and ‘language regimes’,to address: ‘How and why are language policy choices made and how do they come about?’ (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 3).

First, state traditions are understood as the ‘institutional and normative baggage’

that can ‘mark the path that states take in policy making’ (Sonntag and Cardinal 2015: 4). It is informed by the key tenets of historical institutionalism and holds that while state institutions do react to the demands and pressures of society, they also possess a relative degree of autonomy (Sonntag and Cardinal 2015: 4). This entails that state tradition can conceptually be linked to some of historical institutionalism’s core analytical tools, such as path dependence and critical junctures (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 12, 4-5). Second, the concept of language regimes refers to ‘language practices as well as conceptions of language and language use as projected through state policies and as acted upon by language users’ (Sonntag and Cardinal 2015: 6). The two are seen as inter-related concepts: state traditions serve to frame the assumptions that underpin particular language regimes, and this, in turn, guides the nature of the language policies that are introduced and the nature of the sociolinguistic practices adopted by language users. This relationship is exemplified with the following imaginary example:

Consider, for the sake of simplicity, a monolingual language regime informed by a Herderian state tradition of one-language-one nation. Such a regime would define language use in terms of a single national language. Language policies would reflect that definition and, for example, restrict the medium of instruction in schools to the national language. Most language users would adhere to the conception of a single language as the national one and would act accordingly (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 6).

5

The framework is presented as enabling a systematic examination of the historical, institutional and normative contexts that influence state language policy choices.

This new explanatory framework possesses a number of strengths. First, it has

been applied to analyse language policy choices in a range of different cases, from Canada (Cardinal, 2015) to Taiwan (Dupré, 2015), and thus it is clearly a flexible framework that can be utilised in relation to a range of different contexts. In addition, the framework demonstrates the importance of analysing the institutional arrangements and policy trajectories guiding language policy choices. In doing so, it achieves its aim of developing a stronger institutional analysis of language policy, thus bridging between language policy and political science.

However, it is not clear that a framework that places such an emphasis on the concept of ‘state tradition’ provides a basis on which to capture the specific political circumstances that contextualises policy developments in relation to regional and minority languages. In particular, in such contexts the process is potentially influenced by political structures that operate at multiple levels of governance. Clearly, the editors recognise that linguistic diversity is a feature of life across most communities, regions and countries (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 14), and therefore, they have sought to ensure that the volume contributes to understanding how language policy choices govern ‘linguistic diversity locally, nationally, regionally, or globally.’ (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 14). Indeed, one of the professed strengths of the framework is its ability to analyse ‘language policy choices that grate against the default nation-state model’ (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 5), and as such, certain contributors focus on cases of regional or minority languages (e.g. Silesian and Kashubian in Poland in Szul, 2015). Furthermore, factors such as decentralization are taken into account in certain chapters, and an effort is made to connect the state-tradition approach with broader work on sub-state governance (e.g. the discussion of Basque in Iparalde, France, in Harguindéguy and Itçania, 2015). However, on the whole, the primary focus seems to be on the state level, resulting in a tendency for any discussion of the sub-state level to be more limited and generalised in nature. Consequently, the sub-state political dynamics that also condition language policy choices taken with regard to regional and minority languages are left under-examined, as is the potential for diversity with regard to language policy regimes that may exist within individual states. A multilevel historical institutionalist framework Building on the recent valuable scholarship on state traditions and language regimes discussed above, this paper develops an explanatory framework that takes greater account of the multi-level context within which language policy choices relating to regional or minority languages take place. Consequently, the paper responds to the rise in sub-state governments across Western Europe, and the fact that, over recent decades, the establishment of these governments has often been a catalyst for policy initiatives aimed at recognizing and supporting particular, non-state regional or minority languages. The research question guiding the rest of the investigation is as follows:

What are the key factors that have conditioned language policy choices instituted with regard to European regional or minority languages?

6

The paper reflects Sonntag and Cardinal’s work (2015) by also drawing on the literature on historical institutionalism. However, it develops its own interpretation of this literature and also, importantly, combines this with a multi-level framework that can analyse the multiple levels of governance that may influence policy decisions relating to regional or minority languages. The rest of this section outlines the core features of this alternative framework: first, the relevant elements of historical institutionalism are discussed and following that the multi-level framework. As a strand of ‘new institutionalism’ theory, historical institutionalism is familiar as having been grounded in comparative politics and applied in particular to analyse public policy choices (e.g. see for instance Steinmo, Thelen and Longstreth 1992). Whilst there are central features to historical institutionalism, there are also differences in emphases amongst authors, including the extent to which authors embrace the theory in their analyses. A key emphasis is the theoretical importance of political institutions to the extent that they can be considered as the key independent variable that affects political outcomes and behaviour (Lecours, 2000: 511). Consequently, a central issue for historical institutionalism is the definition of institutions. They can be understood as ‘formal organizations, rules and procedures’ (Lecours, 2000: 513), such as constitutions, the structure of party systems, relations among different branches of government, state-interest group relations and policy networks that structure the political process (Immergut, 1998: 17). Such an emphasis on the formal aspects of institutions differs from other perspectives that give greater weight to the informal aspects of institutions (e.g. Hall and Taylor, 1996)

A second key feature to understanding historical institutionalism is the way it approaches the relationship between structure and agency. This relationship is a matter of debate within this vein of new institutionalism (Hay and Wincott, 1998: 953) and some contend that it is a problem for the approach (Peters, 2012: 83). Nevertheless, authors such as Lecours (2000: 516) recognise the importance of agency and stress the agency-structure dynamic of historical institutionalism as ‘the interactions between actors and institutions, focusing not only on actors, but also on how institutions are shaped and re-shaped by these actors’.

Similarly, it is important to understand the way in which role of ideas is

approached in historical institutionalism given that there have been challenges to give due attention to their role in influencing the direction of political institutions (Hay and Wincott, 1998: 957). Peters explains (2012: 72) that under the influence of Hall, greater attention was given within this approach to the critical role of ideas in shaping policy: ‘This independent role for ideas was also to become a major part of the historical institutionalist approach seen more generally.’ In this respect, ideas can influence both institutions and agents in a dynamic way. As Lecours points (2000: 513), ‘institutions not only play a crucial role in the organization and mobilization of interests and identities, they are also prominent in their definition.’

Finally, and understandably given its name, a key feature of historical institutionalism is the understanding of the role of historical development and context to institutions and institutional change. A related core concept is ‘path dependence’, the

7

idea that institutionalised commitments in the formative period of an institution or policy strongly influences subsequent decisions (Peters, 2012: 72-3). ‘Path dependence’, dynamics associated with one period establish a particular trajectory and remain an enduring influence that impedes diversion from a set policy direction. This can be disrupted by the intervention of a significant force, episodes of critical junctures, understood as crucial moments of institutional change that can spur historical development to different and alternative developmental paths (Thelen, 1999). The theory has subsequently enhanced its ability to explore change in policy through greater recognition of the potential for more gradual change and institutional adaptation as a result of internal and external forces (Peters, 2012: 80-1). Now that the key features of historical institutionalism have been discussed, it is possible to move on to introduce the multi-level framework for analysing policy choices relating to regional or minority languages. Its multi-level nature responds to the way in which institutional factors at multiple levels of governance influence policy choices regarding regional and minority languages. Inspired by other work grounded in historical institutionalism (Lecours, 2002), the framework focuses on five levels: local, sub-state political systems, ‘state’ structures, continental regimes and the global system. The framework intends to provide a basis for analysing the multi-level institutional structure-agency dynamics that impact upon language policy choices in the case of various regional and minority languages.

Language policy choices may be predominantly shaped by domestic institutional environments at the state, sub-state and local levels. In practice, domestic institutional settings may reinforce and complement one another and generate a basis for robust and wide-ranging policy interventions to support regional or minority languages. The reverse may also apply whereby different levels within these domestic institutional settings may be at odds with one another with the effect of constraining the potential range of interventions taken to support minority languages. On this basis, overall, international level structures tend to have a more limited role in structuring language policy choices. Nevertheless, the impact of interventions at these levels may have direct effects on domestic institutional settings. For instance, they may provide a broader canvass for domestic efforts and go beyond more symbolic statements through direct interventions to promote regional or minority languages. Indeed, international level structures may impact on domestic level institutional environments, through institutional interventions that may influence state-level approaches or the dynamic between the state and sub-state or local levels.

a) The local and/or sub-state level. The key institutional configurations that can affect language policy choices operating at the local and regional political system levels are similar. The nature of their relative role in language policy choice formation depends on the nature of governmental arrangements and division of powers within a given state, i.e. the extent to which the governance arrangements are multi-level (for instance, local/municipal and state level governments or local, sub-state and state level governments). The four main structural features include the formal powers at the sub-state level, including the degree of fiscal autonomy; the institutional development of governance arrangements; the nature of the party system; and the level and nature of civil society activism.

8

The first dimension at the local or sub-state level of analysis is the extent of

decentralisation and the nature of formal powers that determines the degree to which there is autonomy to adopt particularly distinctive approaches to language policy. This largely relates to the nature of the division of powers between different levels of government more generally, and more specifically to the basis provided to utilise any regulatory, distributive and constituent instruments with regards to regional and minority languages specifically, or instruments that are implicated in key social domains relevant to language policy, including the family home, education system, media, economy and civil society. For instance, it is dependent on the degree to which a legislative basis for the language may provide it with an official status and the type of language rights afforded to speakers of the language in their engagement with bodies in the public, private or third sectors. The extent of fiscal autonomy available may similarly structure decisions regarding financial support to programmes intending to promote the language. The second dimension is the institutional development of governance arrangements relating to language policy governance. This is associated with the internal arrangements of governmental institutions for language policy development, implementation and co-ordination between linguistic policy and other domains that are critical to language policy. Another aspect of the institutional configuration may be the impact of specific bodies charged with language policy development.

The third dimension is the party system. A particularly critical aspect for this dimension is the degree to which the party system is composed of important nationalist or regionalist parties and their relative impact within the party system. The connection between distinct regional or minority languages and nationalist or regionalist parties is often extremely strong with this linguistic distinctiveness proving as a fundamental cornerstone of a party’s existence in some cases.

A final dimension is civil society engagement. This may relate to the nature of the relationship between civil society organisations and governmental institutions and the extent to which such organisations are involved in or influence language governance. This can take different forms and can vary from formal engagement in institutionalised channels, to involvement in policy networks, to turning to direct action methods in response to a perception of lack of opportunities for direct involvement.

b) The state level. At this level, the two main structural features are the constitutional framework and intergovernmental relations. As regards constitutional frameworks, this has two dimensions. The first is the extent of constitutional/legal recognition of regional and minority languages in the formal constitutional framework. This tends to vary from examples of state written constitutions specifying the conditions under which language rights are to be recognised and implemented or where states lack a written constitution and where individual language rights are not usually recognised (Williams, 2013: 15). The second is the proactivity of a court system within the constitutional framework and, consequently, the extent to which the court system is actively involved in adjudicating on the language rights of speakers of a given regional or minority language (e.g. Cardinal, 2015).

9

The impact of the institutional context of intergovernmental relations on

language policy choices can vary significantly. Of key significance is whether language planning and policy takes place in federal and regionalised states, which has a direct bearing on the extent to which relations between levels of government are formalised and institutionalised. Key issues for consideration are the nature of inter-governmental relations in areas relevant to regional or minority languages, and whether any formalised bilateral or multilateral structures exist relating to language policy between and amongst different levels of government within the state.

While domestic institutional contexts may be the prevailing influence shaping regional and minority language policy choices, the international institutional context can promote opportunities and bolster the position of regional and minority languages. It is important to distinguish between the continental and international levels to clarify their potential effects.

c) The continental level. At the third level, continental political and economic regime structures may have mixed effects on regional and minority languages. Three institutional variables may be conducive to language policy choices. First, the European Union can provide them with formal recognition, including within its institutional arrangements. Second, the EU may elaborate programmes of activity backed by financial support that contribute towards revitalisation efforts. Third, the EU may act as a focal point for and support the development of structures that promote networks associated with regional and minority languages. To the contrary, continental economic regimes may serve as a catalyst for simplifying and harmonising the range of services offered in particular languages, thus limiting linguistic diversity. Their relative impact on a specific regional and minority language may depend on the organisation of state structures, particularly the extent to which sub-states or local entities have a presence at the EU level through indirect routes via state-level channels and direct routes such as a sub-state representation in Brussels, and their ability to exert influence in areas that are relevant to language policy.

d) The global level. Finally, at the global system level, three institutional structures can be considered to impact on regional and minority languages. The first is the role of international treaties. Clauses that recognise regional or minority languages may have some impact, if these languages are in a tenuous position. In the case of languages that are on a more certain basis, such declarations may prove to be little more than symbolic. The greatest institutional effect of such treaties are possibly those on states if they become signatories to such agreements by acting as a benchmark in their approach to minority or regional languages. Second, regional or minority languages may also benefit from recognition in other states, either through the influence of a diaspora or through having official status in some cases, thus providing external legitimacy to the language and its speakers. Third, networks associated with regional and minority languages may also exist at the international level and can provide a structure for proponents of the language to support each other and exert pressure on international or continental organisations.

10

Finally, the paper also incorporates other core concepts of historical institutionalism. As previously outlined, the theory stresses how initial choices and institutionalised commitments in the formative phase of an institution or a policy strongly influence subsequent decisions, thus emphasising ‘path dependence’ as a particular trajectory can have an enduring influence on a policy direction. One interpretation is that an established trajectory can be affected by episodes of critical junctures, understood as crucial moments of institutional change that can spur different and alternative developmental paths with an alternative interpretation internal and external forces may induce more gradual change in policy and institutional adaptation (Peters, 2012: 80-1). Language Policy Choices in Wales The paper now applies this multi-level historical institutionalist framework to analyse language policy choices with regards to the Welsh language in Wales. This represents a prominent European example of language revitalisation efforts and can be considered as the most developed UK-based example of government-led activity through active and ongoing language promotion efforts. The centuries long primacy of the English language and the denigration of the Welsh language from public life compounded by the effects of industrialization and migration patterns meant that speakers of the language were in steady decline in the twentieth century. According to the 2011 census, Welsh is currently spoken by a total of 562,00 individuals (aged 3 and over), 19% of the population of Wales (Office of National Statistics, 2016). Efforts to promote the prospects of the language have a long history (see e.g. Jenkins and Williams, 2000) and devolution and the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999 was considered as an example of the ‘new opportunities’ for linguistic minorities in devolved legislatures (Williams, 2013: 8).

This investigation differentiates between two periods; firstly, the period from the 1960s to the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, and secondly, the period of devolved government from 1999 to 2015. This division provides a valuable basis to analyse whether the establishment of devolved government actually served as a catalyst for a new period of proactive policy activity. Therefore, in historical institutionalist terms, it is possible to inquire whether it signified a ‘critical juncture’ for policy choices with regards to the Welsh language.

As context to the analysis, the main institutional features of Welsh administration and governance in the two periods under examination are as follows. Distinct administrative arrangements in Wales as a form of administrative devolution developed from the end of the nineteenth century. At their core was a recognition of Welsh distinctiveness (Mitchell, 2009). This development initially centred on education but expanded as the decentralization of Whitehall departments resulted in establishing Welsh bodies to administer UK government policies in Wales. Such developments slowly paved the way in 1964 for a Welsh Office as a UK Department of State, led by a cabinet-level Welsh Secretary of State. Amongst its initial responsibilities were areas such as health, education, economic development, local government and agriculture. Building on these developments, in 1999 executive devolution was established based on a 60-member directly elected National Assembly for Wales. Between 1999 and 2015, a

11

conferred powers model specified and thus constrained regional autonomy. Primary legislative powers were reserved to central government with secondary powers devolved in eighteen pre-defined areas. However, in 2011, full primary legislative powers were granted to the National Assembly in twenty areas. Devolved government also had comparatively low levels of fiscal autonomy as it lacked tax varying or borrowing powers and was therefore dependent on block grant funding from the UK Government (see Cole and Stafford, 2015).1

Regarding the most relevant constitutional powers to exploring language policy choices, the Welsh language formed part of the initial responsibilities of the Welsh Office on its establishment in 1964 (Deacon, 2002: 37). This provided it with executive competence and policy implementation functions in this area. Subsequently, Section 32 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 stipulated that the National Assembly ‘may do anything it considers appropriate to support the Welsh language’ (HMSO, 1998) with the wording considered as providing the Assembly with generous powers in this area (Rawlings, 2003: 218). Welsh administrative devolution and language policy As regards language policy choices prior to 1999, overall, this period is characterised by a lack of planning and coordination in language policy that enabled significant developments in some spheres due to the impact of agency-structure dynamics. Key examples include the expansion of Welsh-medium education, the establishment of a Welsh television channel, S4C, and the first Welsh Language Act in 1993. The multi-level framework can explain the policy choices initiated during this period.

The main factors conditioning language policy choices at the local level reflect the framework: the nature of formal powers, the institutional development of governance arrangements and the role of civil society organisations, with the impact of the party system being more variable. Local government structures had the policy and fiscal autonomy within the confines established by the UK Treasury to provide the context for proactive language planning initiatives. They include the development of Welsh-medium education and examples of pioneering local governments operating internally through the medium of Welsh and advancing policies to promote the language in a range of domains. As regards the former, in the absence of any explicit national-level planning, local government structures provided the basis for a substantial growth in Welsh-medium schools in response to local demands. This can be accounted for by the way in parents exerted pressure on local government structures and received support from elites at council level, either senior officials or councillors.2 The impact of the party system can be considered to be less powerful in this context as Labour controlled councils that tended to oppose these developments were transcended by consensus-building in support of establishing Welsh-medium schools (Williams, 2002).

Local government reorganisation in 1974 created an administrative structure that facilitated proactive language policy choices, particularly in Gwynedd. Signals of path dependence are evident as the internal practices of previous local governance structures influenced the trajectory, as did a shadow council that established a robust language policy and an organisational structure that consequently facilitated promoting the language both within the council’s administration and externally in the locality.

12

Achieving these aims was also contingent upon the interrelationships between the structure of local government, the party system within which Plaid Cymru was strongly represented and the political agency of senior officers with a clear vision of the council’s potential to create linguistic change (Carlin, 2009). Despite the attempts of the 1993 language act to create greater consistency in the provision of services in Welsh at this level, the extent to which councils were proactive continued to be strongly influenced by political agency and party systems, with government reorganisation in 1996 having some effects on these dynamics.

As regards the sub-state level, the Welsh Office was compatible with the UK parliament’s supremacy and lacked autonomy in important respects. Nevertheless, the three key institutional features had a direct impact on language policy choices through quite complex interactions, namely the institutional development of governance arrangements including in the effects on civil society and policy communities, and the impact of the party system. First, despite its limitations, the existence of the Welsh Office and gradual expansion in its capacity contributed to a process of greater recognition of Welsh distinctiveness and to Welsh institution-building. Consequently, it provided a focal point for the formation of language-related policy communities and served as a channel for policy elites to influence initiatives that impacted upon the Welsh language at the sub-state and state levels. For instance, intellectuals played a critical role in influencing the UK Government’s strong opposition in the 1980s to a new language act to legislation being enacted in 1993. The Welsh Office also became a central target for protest movements such as Cymdeithas yr Iaith as they utilised non-violent civil disobedience in specific language campaigns. Second, in an area such as the Welsh language where powers were clearly devolved, there are examples where governance arrangements influenced policy trajectories. For instance, the establishment of a consultative language committee, ‘Welsh Language Board’, by the Secretary of State for Wales to prepare voluntary protocols for different sectors was an important and unintended step paving the way for new language legislation. The resulting successor board with the same title was established on a statutory footing. Indeed, the nature of the Welsh Language Board as created by the Welsh Language Act 1993 also meant that Welsh language governance replicated other policy domains given the broader surge in the number of quangos in Wales. The Board experienced the autonomy granted to other non-departmental public bodies that resulted in much more extensive activity than envisaged at the outset. It led to a significant expansion of language policy governance that was more systematic and proactive rather than previously more reactionary responses to external pressure, particularly through its approach to statutory language schemes to institutionalise bilingual working practices. This is another unintended consequence of policies in their early phase of development. Third, the party system in Wales also contributed to advances in language policy governance as the Conservative Party adopted policies characterised as ‘distinctly un-Thatcherite’, and considered as ‘progressive and interventionist and became the cornerstone of subsequent language policy’ in seeking to avoid further electoral downfall in Wales (Edwards et al, 2011: 535).

On the impact of state level structures, central government had a strong influence on language policy in Wales, characterised by a lack of understanding in Whitehall compounded by strong opposition from the UK Government throughout

13

1980s to steps such as new language legislation. The implication of the constitutional framework is clear in that Westminster was responsible for passing legislation for Wales. The general characteristics of the legislative process also had an influence. For instance, examples such as the Education Reform Act (1988) that led to the compulsory teaching of the language3 and the Welsh Language Act (1993) were characterised by external pressure exerted from civil society, leading to more closed joint working between key parliamentarians, key policy elites in Wales and Conservative Ministers to achieve a compromise. The process was constrained by the implications of linguistic related legislation being scrutinised in a UK parliament that did not support language policies of this type. This alludes to the broader impact of the constitutional arrangements on the nature of the legislation. Lobbying efforts in the context of the 1993 Act to make Welsh an ‘official language’ did not succeed, particularly as there was an aversion in the British constitutional framework to providing an official status to the language and adopting a ‘rights based’ approach. Finally, in contrast to the analytical framework, it could be argued that the impact of a nationalist party within the party system was more important at the Westminster level, as they had a more acute impact in putting forward private members bills and making the case for policy interventions to support the Welsh language.

While further research needs to be conducted to the impact of the continental level on language policy choices, they provided a context for Welsh language initiatives that reflect aspects of the framework. For instance, the EU’s aim preserving Europe's shared cultural heritage with which promoting linguistic diversity and minorities was an important context. This can be considered an enabling context and associated with the understanding of the way in which Europe influenced the UK Government’s approach to the 1993 Act (Edwards et al, 2011: 549). As a backdrop to this, from the 1980s onwards Welsh organisations engaged in different European programmes emanating from a work programme created by the European Parliament to support linguistic minorities and a research programme funded by the European Commission in support of minority languages, in some cases facilitated by senior staff at the European Commission from Wales (Thomas, 2010: 176). A range of Welsh organisations also engaged in European networks including the European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages that from 1982 sought to promote linguistic diversity and their position with European institutions. These ties set the basis for the Welsh Language Board to also be involved in such networks on its establishment. However, the framework did not refer to the impact of the development of the Council of Europe Charter on Regional or Minority Languages that could be ratified by Member States from 1992 that had similar influences as that of the EU.

Given the extent to which institutional structures domestically and at the European level influenced language policy choices regarding the Welsh language, the more limited impact of the international level is not unexpected. Nevertheless, it is possible to point to initiatives such as the 1996 UNESCO Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights where prominent individuals from Wales contributed to its drafting (Thomas, 2010: 172), and to circumstances where statements produced by such organisations assisted the Language Board in considering key areas of intervention.

14

Language policy choices in post-devolution Wales While the work of the Welsh Language Board from the late 1980s onwards prompted a gradual move towards a more coordinated and planned approach to language policy in Wales, the introduction of devolved government in 1999 served to push this process even further. Key developments during the post-devolution period include: passing the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, which accorded the language official status in Wales for the first time, and which led to the abolition of the Welsh Language Board and the establishment of the post of Welsh Language Commissioner and the adoption of two national language strategies outlining the Welsh Government’s plans to maintain and grow the Welsh language4 (see Williams, 2013). Once again, the multi-level institutional framework can explain the policy choices initiated during this period.

At the local level, the key institutional factors conditioning language policy choices reflect those evident during administrative devolution. Some of the key areas of policy activity post 1999 include: further development of Welsh-medium education and innovative efforts to support the prospects of the Welsh language through housing and planning policies. In terms of education, a combination of parent-led campaigns and work by elites within councils continue as the main drives of policy decisions. However, another important institutional development, the Welsh Government’s national Welsh-medium education strategy (Welsh Government, 2010) also has an impact. Given the increasing evidence of the impact of inward- and outward-migration trends in parts of Wales on the demolinguistic profile of areas traditionally considered the language’s heartland, a debate emerged regarding the need for local authorities to integrate linguistic considerations into policy fields such as housing and planning. Replicating education initiatives during earlier periods, the formal powers available to local authorities provided scope for a certain amount of policy innovation during the preparation of strategic development plans and local housing strategies. However, this innovation is most pronounced in areas where active policy elites combined with a high level of Plaid Cymru representation, particularly, once more, in Gwynedd.

At the sub-state level, the influence of factors such as the nature of formal powers, the institutional development of governance arrangements and the nature of the party system come to the fore. The latter of these factors was particularly important in instigating a substantial amount of policy activity in relation to the Welsh language during the first term of devolution (1999-2003). With Labour running a minority administration, Plaid Cymru used its political influence to ensure debate on the prospects of the Welsh language. The outcome was passing a motion that committed the Assembly5 to the ambitious objective of creating a bilingual Wales and that called for developing a ‘coordinated and targeted strategy’ (Dafis, 2005: 236), and for ‘comprehensive policy reviews’ into the language by its Culture and Education Committees. In the particular institutional configuration of the Assembly in the early years, these reviews, and the subsequent joint report fed into the Welsh Government’s first national language strategy, Iaith Pawb in 2003. The intervention of Plaid Cymru early during the Assembly’s first term had a ‘path dependent’ influence on the direction of the language policy process as early decisions in that process seem to have set the parameters for the ensuing discussions (see e.g. Dafis, 2005, 261-2). The role of agency also contributes to explaining these developments. In addition to the party system allowing Plaid Cymru to exert influence over Labour, the role of key individuals such as

15

Cynog Dafis within the party and in Assembly committees was significant in ensuring that the Welsh language was treated as a political priority. During the same period, the nature of the Assembly’s formal powers acted as an important institutional variable that structured the nature and direction of the language policy process. When the committee reviews were announced, a section of the Welsh language movement saw an opportunity to push the case in favour of stronger language legislation. The call for a new Welsh language act featured in the evidence submitted to the review process by a number of prominent civil society actors and it was advocated by key Plaid Cymru representatives serving on the review committees. However, along with the agency of certain key policy elites who were not in favour of new legislation, the Assembly’s constrained legislative powers and the cumbersome nature of the process for requesting primary legislation for Wales in Westminster undermined the call for a new Welsh language act. These conditions explain why the need for new legislation was not established as a policy priority particularly in the Welsh Government’s 2003 strategy document. Rather, the focus was on using other available policy levers, in particular the distribution of greater public funding to support the Welsh Language Board and several other public and third sector language promotion projects. Indeed, the ability to distribute these additional funds was facilitated by another feature of the constitutional arrangements: the autonomy enjoyed by the Welsh Government to set its own public spending priorities on the basis of an annual block grant from the UK Treasury, in a period of UK-wide public funding increases during the mid-2000s. By early 2006 the issue of new language legislation had returned to the political agenda, and in 2011 the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure was passed. The original catalyst was the Welsh Government’s decision in 2004 to abolish a series of arm’s length public bodies, and merge their responsibilities into the Welsh Government. The intention to abolish the Welsh Language Board was announced a year later than a series of other key bodies. Given the centrality of the Board to the operation of the 1993 act, the possibility of its abolition prompted a renewed public debate regarding the question of Welsh language legislation. This debate was given further impetus by the fact that the National Assembly’s formal powers were due to be extended in 2007 to include a limited form of primary legislative powers. Indeed, a broad consensus developed regarding a new Welsh language act that encompassed all of the main Welsh language civil society groups, each opposition party, and, significantly given its previous opposition, the Welsh Language Board. At this point, sub-state institutional arrangements combined with the Welsh party system emerged once again as key institutional features driving language policy developments. Labour, consistent in its opposition to the need to substantially revise and strengthen the 1993 act, failed to secure a governing majority during the 2007 election under the semi-proportional electoral system. This led to a formal coalition agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru that included a commitment to use the Assembly’s newly extended powers to introduce a new Welsh language measure to confirm official status for both Welsh and English, establish linguistic rights in the provision of services and create the post of Language Commissioner. Indeed, the significance of the coalition deal - and therefore the significance of the party system as an institutional driver – extended beyond the

16

issue of legislation given the inclusion of a number of other important commitments in the field of Welsh medium education. Turning to the state-level, it understandable that relevant institutions do not appear to be as influential post-devolution. Nevertheless, certain elements clearly continue to condition language policy in important ways. Of particular significance is the nature of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. As previously noted, it influenced the formulation of the 1993 Welsh language act, and it emerged once again as a key institutional factor in relation to the 2011 legislation. Despite the declared intention of Labour-Plaid coalition to introduce legislation that would accord the Welsh language official status and establish legal language rights, the UK’s unwritten constitutional order meant that seeking to realize such objectives proved to be a challenging and contentious task. This relates to the way in which it is not the norm for individual rights to be declared de jure within unwritten systems, and as a result, the eventual legislation did not specify a list of explicit language rights as expected. As was the case for the earlier period, further research is needed in order to clarify the impact of institutional structures at the continental and global levels post-devolution. Yet, at this stage it is possible to identify certain factors that have influenced the direction of policy choices regarding the Welsh language. The role of international organisations, along with the role of international charters or declarations, are exemplified by the case of the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, which was eventually ratified by the UK Government in 2000. There is limited evidence that some of the clauses signed within the Charter in relation to Welsh prompted activity by civil society organisations. For example, support for the publication of a Welsh-medium daily newspaper was used as an opening to develop a campaign that called on the Welsh Government to provide public funds that would facilitate such a publication (Thomas, 2010). Also of significance are the continued role of European regional and minority language networks. In particular, building on the work of earlier networks, the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity (NPLD) was established in 2007, with a secretariat provided via the Welsh Language Board until 2012. Amongst its core functions is to disseminate good practice in constituent language communities, and such work is viewed as having had important consequences for language policy development at lower levels of governance as ‘many of those who now run or influence language planning agencies and regional/national government departments of language and culture received much of their international exposure and political training in language policy affairs within these informal networks’ (Williams, 2013:19). Conclusion The paper’s focus was on elaborating a historical institutionalist framework capable of analysing the institutional factors that condition language policy choices with respect to European regional and minority languages. In doing so, it sought to contribute to efforts to apply political science perspectives to language policy analysis, particularly by extending the range of frameworks available to examine the political origins of language policies to include ones more attuned to the multi-level context that influences language policy choices for regional and minority languages.

17

Applying the framework to analyse language policy choices in the case of the

Welsh language in Wales contributed to assessing its robustness. This investigation provided valuable insights into the Welsh case, thus underlining the strengths of the multi-level framework grounded in a historical institutionalist approach. In evaluating the framework and the extent to which it identified the key institutional configurations that affect language policy choices at different levels, the Welsh case confirmed the assertion that domestic institutional environments at the state, sub-state and local levels had a greater influence than international level structures on language policy choices for regional and minority languages. It nevertheless pointed to ways in which international levels structures created a broader context for institutional dimensions and agency-structure dynamics at the domestic levels responding to language policy choices. In addition, the case study also drew attention to the way in which agency served important functions in the case of specific policy developments and to the way in which structure-agency dynamics had important effects, particularly in the interaction of policy elites and elected politicians with institutional configurations.

The Welsh case also pointed to two other structural features that need to be

taken into account and incorporated in the framework. It pointed to the way in which the party system at the state level should be taken into account. In this instance, this was important in order to take account of the way in which the relative strength of nationalist parties at this level could impact upon language policy choices. As regards the continental level, discussion of the pre and post-devolution period pointed to the impact of Council of Europe initiatives. Therefore, the framework needs to be able to take greater account of institutional dynamics other than the European Union itself with respect to continental political and economic regimes.

The Welsh case also underlined the contribution of the other core concepts to

historical institutionalism to analysing language policy trajectories, particularly ‘path dependence’. Overall, the discussion clearly indicated the way in which political devolution opened up opportunities at the sub-state level for the nature of the formal powers and the party system in the context of the institutional structure of the National Assembly in the early period to create different dynamics in language policy trajectories. Nevertheless, it suggests that in many important respects ‘path dependencies’ of language policy governance pre-1999 had a powerful influence that limited the extent to which the formation of the National Assembly created a ‘critical juncture’. This can be considered to be at odds with the expectation of a historical institutionalist approach that devolved government would act as a crucial moment of institutional formation spurring alternative developmental paths. Rather, the findings underline the importance of understanding the historical background, recognising the continuities from the pre-devolution period (Mitchell 2009: 13-5) and consequently the strengths of ‘path dependence’ within historical institutionalism as an explanatory factor. From this perspective, the analysis provided greater appreciation of continuities and particularly how language legislation in both periods created particular governance arrangements for language policy that served as a more powerful grounding for critical junctures.

On this basis, this paper has demonstrated that applying a multi-level framework

18

can provide a comprehensive understanding of language policy choices with respect to regional and minority languages. Consequently, further research would be extremely valuable to evaluate the broader applicability of this approach to analyse language policy choices in other contexts, and the extent of its capacity to provide convincing explanations in cases where languages are in varying conditions of demographic health, in circumstances where other institutionalised contexts such as regionalised and federal states, or continental political and economic regimes, may have contrasting effects on language policy choices. 1 Some limited borrowing and tax-varying powers were granted in the Wales Act 2014. 2 Parents drew on the UK 1944 Education Act provision that: ‘Children shall be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents’. See Williams, 2002. 3 The Education Reform Act 1988 symbolized the first statutory enforcement for Welsh in education by making teaching Welsh a requirement in all schools in Wales between 5-16, and Welsh becoming a core subject on the curriculum. 4 These strategies were Iaith Pawb (Welsh Assembly Government, 2003) and A Living Language: A Language for Living (Welsh Government, 2012) 5 During the early years of devolution, the internal architecture of the National Assembly for Wales was based on a corporate body structure, with no formal legal distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government. As a result, during this period motions and policy of the sort discussed here would commit the Assembly as a whole, as opposed to the Welsh Government to particular policy objectives. As the institution matured, the corporate structure came to be widely criticised and conscious effort was made to distinguish more clearly between the Assembly as a legislature and the Welsh Government as the executive, leading to its formal recognition in legislation in the Government of Wales Act (2006). REFERENCES Carens, J. H. (2000). Culture Citizenship and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Cardinal, L. (2015). ‘State Tradition and Language Regime in Canada’, in L. Cardinal and S. K. Sonntag (eds) State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal & Kingston), 29-43. Carlin, P. (2009). Cynllunio Ieithyddol mewn Awdurdodau Isranbarthol yng Ngwlad y Basg, Catalwnia a Chymru, Phd Thesis, Aberystwyth University. Carlin, P. (2013). ‘On Both Sides of de Menai? Planning for the Welsh Language in North West Wales’, Revista de Llengua i Dret 59, 92-110. Cole, A., Stafford, I. (2015). Devolution and Governance: Wales between capacity and constraint. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cooper, R. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dafis, C. (2005). Mab y Pregethwr (Talybont: Y Lolfa)

19

Deacon, R. M. (2002). The Governance of Wales: The Welsh Office and the Policy Process 1964-99 (Cardiff: Welsh Academic Press). De Schutter, H. (2008). ‘The Linguistic Territoriality Principle: A Critique, ‘ Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2): 105-20. Dupré, J.-F. (2015). ‘Mandarin State Tradition and Language regime Change in Tiwan’, in L. Cardinal and S. K. Sonntag (eds) State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal & Kingston), 154-69. Edwards, A., Tanner, D., Carlin, P. (2011). ‘The Conservative Governments and the Development of Welsh Language Policy in the 1980s and 1990s’, The Historical Journal, 54: 2, 529-551. Fishman, J. A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters). Gazzola, M. (2014). The Evaluation of Language Regimes: Theory and Application to Multilingual Patent Organisations (Amsterdam: John benjamins Publishing Company). Grin, F. (2003). Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Grin, F, Vaillancourt, F, 1999, The Cost Effectiveness Evaluation of Minority Language Policies, Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues Hall, P. A., Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.’ Political Studies 44 (5): 936-957. Harguindéguy J.-B. and Itçania, X. (2015). ‘State Tradition and Regional Languages in France: The Case of Basque’, in L. Cardinal and S. K. Sonntag (eds) State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal & Kingston), 170-90. Hay, C., Wincott, D. 1998. Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism. Political Studies 46 (5): 951-957. Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Schakel, A. H. (2010). The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Countries (London: Routledge). Immergut, E. 1998. The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism. Politics and Society, 26 (1): 5-34. Jenkins, GH, Williams, MA, 2000, Let’s Do our Best for the Ancient Tounge, Cardiff: University of Wales Press

20

Kaplan R. B. and R. B. Baldauf (1997). Language Planning: From Practice to Theory (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters). Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten, eds. 2003. Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lecours, André. 2000. Theorizing Cultural Identities: Historical Institutionalism as a Challenge to the Culturalists. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33 (3): 499-522. Lecours, A. (2002). 'Paradiplomacy: Reflections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regions', International Negotiation, vol. 7, 91-114.

Léger, R. and Lewis, H. (2016). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Special Issue: Normative Approaches to Language Policy and Planning, forthcoming. McLeod, W (ed), 2006, Revitalizing Gaelic in Scotland: Policy, Planning and Public Discourse, Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press Mitchell, J. (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

Morris, D. (ed.) (2010). Welsh in the Twenty-First Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). National Assembly for Wales (2002). Our Language: Its Future (Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales). Office for National Statistics, 2016, Proficiency in Welsh, available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censuskeystatisticsforwales/2012-12-11#proficiency-in-welsh Patten, A, 2001, Political Theory and Language Policy, Political Theory, 29, 5, 683-707 Patten, Alan. 2003. ‘Liberal Neutrality and Language Policy’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (4): 356-386. Patten, A, Kymlicka, W, 2003, Introduction: Language Rights and Political Theory: Contexts, Issues and Approaches, in W Kymlicka, A Patten (eds) Language Rights and Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press Peters, B. G. (2012). Institutional theory: problems and prospects. In Debating Institutionalism, eds. J. Pierre, G. B. Peters and G. Stoker. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press.

21

Rawlings, R. (2003). Delineating Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (London: Blackwell Publishing). Sonntag, S. K. and Cardinal, L. (2015). ‘Introduction: State Traditions and Language Regimes: Conceptualizing Language Policy Choices’, in L. Cardinal and S. K. Sonntag (eds) State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal & Kingston), 3- 28. Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Frank Longstreth. eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Strubell, M and Boix-Fuster, E. (eds) (2011). Democratic Politics for Language Revitalization: The Case of Catalan (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Szul, R. (2015). ‘Poland’s Language Regime Governing Kashubian and Silesian’, in L. Cardinal and S. K. Sonntag (eds) State Traditions and Language Regimes (McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal & Kingston), 79-96. Thelen, K. (1999). ‘A Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 2, pp. 369-404.

Thomas, N. (2010). Bydoedd: Cofiant Cyfnod (Talybont: y Lolfa) Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality (London: Longman) Urla, J. (2015). Reclaiming Basque: Language, Nation and Cultural Activism (Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press). Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Welsh Government, 2003, Iaith Pawb – A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales, Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government Welsh Government, 2012, A Living Language: A Language for Living – Welsh Language Strategy 2012-2017, Cardiff: Welsh Government Williams, I. W. (2002). ‘Rhagair’, in I. W. Williams (ed.) Gorau Arf: Hanes Sefydlu Ysgolion Cymraeg 1939-2000 (Talybont: y Lolfa) Williams, C. H. (2007) ‘Articulating the Horizons of Welsh’, in Colin H. Williams (ed.) Language and Governance (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), 387-433.

22

Williams, C. H. (2013). Minority Language Promotion, Protection and Regulation: The Mask of Piety (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).