Manchan Magan's sojourn around the island speaking only Irish confirmed what most of us already knew - as a country we either can't or won't speak Our Official Language. Seeing him appear on RTE's The Panel last week did make me wonder if someone a little less floppy haired and fey (say a random Seoige sister) would have had more success. Or at least encountered less hostility.
His experience does beg the question of why should we try to promote and preserve a language amongst the populace when the overwhelming majority of people display no inclination to use it. Perversely, the same people, i.e. us, who won't speak it a) dishonestly claim on census forms that they can and b) regard attempts to lessen its importance as some sort of national betrayal. Witness all the letters to the papers in the aftermath of Fine Gael's suggestion to drop mandatory Irish after the Junior Cert.
Why do we desperately want to keep it but have no interest in using it?
The usual reasons given in support of Irish - it's importance to our cultural identity or heritage, it's beauty as a language, are fair arguments to speak and restore the language. They are not arguments to preserve it in some undead, ultra marginalised, zombie like state. The only argument I have heard in favour of this arrangement is the pub stool one: "Lads, if we don't have a different language, what is there to distinguish us from the English?" (at which point the 'debater' will sit back, fold his arms and look insufferably smug). Note that actually speaking or knowing how to speak the language is not required, just having it in existence and paid lip service to, is sufficient. (Let's leave aside the fact that being indistinguishable from the English is axiomatically assumed to be an horrendous fate).
In short, it is a tribal symbol. Its value to us is symbolic, not practical. It's a linguistic Celtic jersey.
Anyone who has 'gone travelling' knows it is always easy to spot the Canadians abroad. They always, always, always have a little maple leaf motif somewhere on their clothing or bags. Within the first 60 seconds of conversation with them they will mention they are Canadian. What they are really saying of course is that they are not American. Given the hostile attitude of large swathes of the world to the US, it is probably a wise policy. Unless you are pretty tuned in to the subtleties of accent, one tall, healthy looking, even-toothed North American is pretty much indistinguishable from any other one, nationally speaking.
As a country we should either decide to speak the language or ditch it and distribute lots of shamrock (or your favourite motif) badges/hats/shirts/whatever instead. It would be more honest and a lot cheaper.
13 comments:
Ah...but...is it quite as dead as you suggest? I understand entirely where you're coming from, but I'd think that in a way it exists, yes indeed, as the badge of identity you propose, but also as a sort of current throughout our society, a bit like the words in a stick of rock. They may not have great meaning, but try to take them out and you're in trouble. So perhaps the options you give aren't the only ones and what will really happen is a sort of limping by ad infinitum. On the other hand, consider how Polish, one presumes, has become a de facto language of use in this state. Services have sprung up to facilitate it and so on. If Polish, why not Irish?
I don't think Irish is quite dead, more that it is only surviving courtesy of a state supported life machine.
I agree entirely that the mostly likely outcome is one of 'limping by ad infinitum' as you put it. I was trying to point out what *ought* happen, if people are to be logically consistent (a huge IF, I know).
People either support the increasing use of the language or they don't. If they don't (as I don't - it just is not something that is important to me at all) then making no attempt to learn or speak it, makes sense. If people do support it, then striving to speak it more often (if they already know it) or increasing their knowledge of it (if they don't) is also a perfectly rational position.
It is the third way that I am objecting to:- people who *say* they support it, refuse to consider any dilution of its status and support throwing money at it but make no effort at all to use or learn it. They want it to be spoken, just not by them. It is like saying that 'people should be more religious' and then refusing to ever go to church or pray. Language is not just like some national monument that, even if it is ignored or neglected, will still exist. A language must be spoken to live, ignore it and it dies.
Usage of Latin phrases still abounds in English (well certain kinds of English, anyway) but no one would claim it is a living language. I don't think the cúpla focail that perculate Irish life are much of an indicator of anything - other than (literally!) more lip service.
The Polish comparison is interesting. I would say the difference is the direction of causation. Providers of facilities for Polish speakers realised "They're coming, we'd better build something" while the State has always taken the "Build it and they will come" attitude towards services for Irish speakers. But they never arrived and an awful lot of resources have been consequently squandered.
I'm not entirely convinced by your argument, although I can see the merit. Two points occur to me, firstly would it be sensible for the state to withdraw all funding? I remember once having an argument with Colm O Briain (former Labour party General Secretary, now head of the NCAD) about this, where his argument was that even for minority activities, such as say Opera, where only a tiny proportion of the population follow it it's valuable on a cultural level to subsidise them. And of course, we see how Opera festivals actually generate revenue, tourism, etc. I think the same might be true of Irish. No state could be seen to withdraw support, and I'd bet the majority of Irish people for sentimental reasons would go banana's if it did so.
Secondly how do we weed out those who support it but don't use it?
I don't know.
Finally, isn't it possible that simply by being there it adds to the quality of life of our general cultural environment even if we don't necessarily use it. I think in particular of how it permeates aspects of our lives without our noticing, through typefaces, names, etc. I know that's weak and insipid stuff in some respects particularly in the context of your critique, but perhaps it's the best there is at this point in time?
I wouldn't advocate removing all State support for Irish. There is a significant number of people who do speak the language and are entitled to have their language needs taken care.
As you probably have realised by now, I have a love of analogies. The one I'm thinking of is greyhound racing. It's definitely in the 'minority interest' category. I have no interest in it myself (and in fairness, if it didn't already exist, would anyone invent it?). But I can see why the State might, to some degree, support the industry both for the benefit of the minority who follow it and for the positive benefits, such as they are, that come from it.
The question is how much support should the State give it? If hardly anyone wanted to see greyhound racing anymore, would there be massive State investment in personnel and facilities for it, campaigns run to encourage us to go, compulsory school trips to the dogs, gratuitous usage of greyhound parlance in the Dail... I'll stop now but I think we know the answer.
It is my contention that the amount of support the State gives Irish is well out of kilter with the demand for its use (and with strokes like making it an official EU language, getting even more so). I would argue that the reason for this is the - you hit the nail on the head - sentimentality of the don't-wanna-speak-it-meself brigades (who I accept are the majority).
I have a semi tongue-in-cheek, proposal for weeding out those who support but don't use it: pay for the support of Irish by means of a small 'tax for cultural purposes' that allows individuals to choose which cultural areas it goes to. It could go to Irish language support or to museums or to galleries or orchestras or a mixture or what have you. The idea is to make explicit that when there is a fixed amount of spend, money spent on one area is by definition not spent elsewhere.
That would be democratic wouldn't it?
Yeah, democratic, but I've always been dubious about hypothecation!
I genuinely do have a lot of sympathy with your core point that it is more loved than used, and that love is a fairly distant one.
But I'd still argue practically speaking it would be death to the political party which proposed such an idea.
It is a minority language. This does not mean it is a "dead" language.
It is being spoken by parents to their children who acquire it as their first language - this is the linguistic lithmus text for a living language. The crap about it being a "dead" language is ideological propaganda.
And as regards Manchán's show: several times it was entirely obvious that the person who wouldn't speak it was entirely confident in Irish, but preferred not to speak it in the face of Manchán's provocative and irritating airs.
I am not a particularly nice person, but when visiting Ireland, I have no difficulty at all finding conversation partners in Irish. I have several times come across taxi drivers, café attendants and that sort of people who spoke Irish to me as a matter of course, when they saw me carrying a bookload in Irish or if they heard me speak Irish to an acquaintance. And when I spoke both languages when starting a conversation, to indicate that I am proficient in both, people were always happy to try their Irish with me.
I am an almost seven-foot tall, big and ugly Finnish man, and as I noted, I am not a very nice person. Still, my experience as an Irish-speaking foreigner is, that lots of people do speak it, and that they are happy to speak it to a person like me.
Thanks for your comments Panu.
If I met an almost seven-foot tall 'big and ugly ... not very nice' guy who wanted to speak me to speak Irish to him, I would certainly oblige him. Hell, I'd probably speak Finnish to him too, if that is what he wanted.
You are obviously in the first group I identified - those who really support the language and have learnt or are making an effort to learn it - and more power to you.
I am curious as to what 'ideology' you think I am propagating by describing it as dead? (I think you'll find I termed it 'undead', but no matter).
I am curious as to what 'ideology' you think I am propagating by describing it as dead?
Now, brace yourself, because this is not going to be very nice:
Irish is a minority language. Lots of countries have established minority languages, their speakers having certain rights to use, speak, and be taught in their native language.
In linguistics, a living language is one with infant native speakers, i.e., children who are spoken to by their parents in the language, and who acquire the language naturally as they are brought up ("intergenerational transmission", as we call this). By this criterion, Irish is very much a living language. Calling Irish a "dead language" is thus an outright lie, or at the very least it is rhetoric that is not meant to be taken literally.
The use of lies and rhetoric implies that there is some sort of agenda that is being pursued by imparting disinformation. Thus, an ideology or a set of political aims.
It is not my job to say what ideology it is or what your political aims are. But as you see it fit to make obviously untruthful statements ("Irish is a dead language"), I reckon you are trying to score some kind of political points. If you were merely discussing the facts of the case, you would admit that Irish is, by linguistic criteria, a living (albeit minority) language, and take this into account in your argument. As you persist in stating, in defiance of linguistic reality, that it is a dead language, you obviously prefer your own criteria, which are not scientific, i.e. by default political or ideological.
Panu, you've given a good, closely argued point of view that suffers from just one small problem: At no point did I write that the Irish language was 'dead'. I wrote that it was 'undead', I wrote 'I don't think Irish is quite dead'. I compared it to Latin (which is dead) but only to counter a point WBS made about the incidental use of a language's phrases indicating that language's health, not to say that it was dead like Latin.
As you point out, 'dead' has a precise meaning when applied to languages, and thus I avoided using it. Now you mightn't like my use of the word 'undead' with regard to Irish - fair enough - but I was using it to convey the peculiar situation that Irish has come to occupy in Irish life.
More importantly, I never wrote the 'quotes' you attribute to me - the phrases "dead language" and "Irish is a dead language". When you put words in quotes like that, it is taken to mean that is exactly what the quotee(?) wrote or said, verbatim.
So can I ask you what ideological point you were trying to make when you lied about what I wrote?
Hello, Panu? Hello? Anyone there?
He seems to have disappeared. How odd.
Is aoibheann liom teangacha i gcoitinne, agus creidim fhein gur maith an rud do dhuine ar bith nios mo na teanga amhain a bheith ar a c(h)umas aige/aici.
In the case of Irish, whilst it may be only of academic interest to the international community, for Irish people it is an integral part of our history and culture.
Go back three or four generations and your own ancestors were more than likely speaking Irish as a normal activity. I'm not advocating taking up all the old habits they had, but it would be a pity to throw away this link with where we come from for an increasingly banal globalised English.
Our music and sense of humour have strong roots in the Irish language. Even if people can't speak it 100% fluently, it is something we should hold on to for our sense of identity and for our children.
Not to mention the advantage it now gives us in looking for jobs in the EU!
Many thanks Gealach for your comments.
There is a very interesting discussion to be had about what constitutes our (or indeed any country's) culture and how it relates to what historically has been our culture but it is somewhat beyond the scope of comments here. I hope it is something I will come back to, once I've gathered my thoughts on it a bit more coherently.
One article you might find interesting as regards the global state of the English language can be found here.
One point I would make about Irish being of advantage in getting EU jobs - is that it is just the sort of sideshow nonsense that the Irish language movement tends to get involved with, while the language whithers. It costs a lot (and as I understand it, it costs *us* a lot not 'the EU', we specifically pay for the translators) and results in no additional speakers of the language (let alone any economic benefit).
Post a Comment