Features of an Ideological Tension

The interviews provide an insight into different perspectives on the same issue, which shows that while the decline of Irish might be universally acknowledged, it is in fact experienced in multiple ways. This is also exemplified by the contrasting circumstances of the two main speaker groups that make up the Irish-speaking community, that is, native speakers and a variety of learners (including new speakers as defined in Chapter 6). While the former are experiencing a sociolinguistic crisis that, according to scientific evidence, is leading to their collapse, the latter are seemingly thriving under current circumstances, as a strong

104

emphasis is put on the teaching of Irish as an L2 and a symbolic degree of knowledge is often deemed sufficient by speakers (or rather is generally accepted).

With this in mind, both the literature and the interviews reveal a degree of consensus around the way in which policy should tackle the maintenance of Irish in light of the current situation. Indeed, the interviewees agree on a number of points, arguably the most important one being the necessity of having a place for both native and new speakers in the revival project and finding ways to make them work together more closely for the survival of Irish in the long term. So, it is possible to conclude fairly confidently that no particular group of speakers should be prioritised over the other. Rather, for Irish language maintenance to succeed, both groups must be assisted in parallel. This is a step forward in answering the question on which this dissertation is based: should community-oriented language policy and

‘new speakerness’ be regarded as a dichotomy, or rather as two complementary approaches? Another issue that comes up frequently is the ineffectiveness of past measures targeting the Gaeltacht, as well as the failure to make Irish necessary as opposed to simply desirable in an English-speaking setting. There also appears to be consensus regarding the need to develop speakers’ ability, especially in the context of new speakers of Irish as agents of language maintenance, as opposed to simple ‘learners’ in the traditional sense.

The discussion and interviews do reveal some level of conflict as well, though not necessarily among speakers themselves: as the interviews show, the tension is rather ideological and institutionalised. Some of the points of contention that emerge are tied to fundamental theoretical notions and ways of conceptualising reality. A good example of this is the ‘new speakerness’ strand’s rejection of the native speaker category as a monolithic concept: do native speakers as a separate entity even exist at this point, or do they just represent one end of a continuum? A

‘new speakerness’ stance would seem to suggest that the latter is true, while a community-oriented approach is centred on the opposing view. Contrasting outlooks on this type of issue embody the quandary as to whether the Gaeltacht and its speakers represent a separate sociological entity, a question which is crucial for the future of Irish. For instance, it can raise questions such as on what grounds

105

someone can be considered an Irish speaker to begin with, and whether native speakers in the traditional sociolinguistic sense are needed for the survival of a minority language. Should language policy still target the Gaeltacht as the main engine for the intergenerational transmission of Irish? Or are new speakers capable of taking on this task instead? Is intergenerational transmission absolutely necessary at all? As the interviewees’ answers have highlighted, for Irish to survive, from a community-oriented perspective, it has to remain an intergenerationally transmitted community language, whereas the ‘new speakerness’ approach is more open to other scenarios of language regeneration through new actors, with the revival of Manx as a key example.

Another element of the conversations with the interviewees pertains to power or, in other words, to the discursive dominance of the mainstream debate as a consequence of class issues that date back to the early days of language policy in the country. Ireland is still economically, demographically, and linguistically divided between east and west, with power (whether cultural, political or economic) residing in the former, and this is also reflected in language policy: new speakers possess stronger social capital than traditional speakers simply by virtue of their middle-class origin, as highlighted by Ó Giollagáin (2020). Thus, in a sense, non-native speakers still lead the revival movement in a way that is not dissimilar to the early days of language policy.

The points discussed above raise an important issue: while the two strands may well agree that both native and new speakers are necessary for the overall goal of maintaining Irish, the debate between community-oriented language policy and 'new speakerness' does have a substantial impact on the overall condition of the language since it involves power dynamics which can dictate the approach taken to language maintenance. For instance, the overall approach could place greater emphasis on one particular group of speakers, or particular policy measures might only benefit one category of speaker. Since research informs politics and policy, this debate has implications at a societal level. Consequently, an analysis of the tension between the two research strands presented here calls for an assessment of what language policy is meant to do in the case of Irish today. Fundamental questions

106

need to be asked again, such as who ought to be targeted by policy, why, and how.

The fragmentation of the speaker community demands that the allocation of resources devoted to language policy be given renewed consideration (for instance grants for the promotion of the use of Irish in Irish-speaking families, or funding for Gaelscoileanna in the Galltacht). It also requires assessing how the Irish-speaking community can be brought together as a single entity, while still ensuring that individual needs are not overlooked.

Against this background, in the following sections I shall construct my analysis on the assumption that both native and new speakers are necessary (in line with what emerged in the interviews). Although I will make a number of direct comparisons between the approaches to stress what I deem to be the pros and cons of each approach, my overall goal here is therefore not to claim that policy should focus exclusively on either native or new speakers (or learners in general), but rather to assess how each current of thought can positively or negatively impact the future of Irish; as well as how both points of view can feed into each other. I will also proceed from the assumption that – in spite of the crisis in the Gaeltacht – the preservation of Irish as an intergenerationally transmitted community language is currently still one of the government’s aims, as detailed in the 20-Year Strategy (Government of Ireland 2010). In the analysis, I will refer largely to the literature quoted in the rest of the dissertation.