Implications for the Gaeltacht

More concretely, this would mean implementing effective and realistic policy measures for the Gaeltacht and all future remaining native speakers, however scant they might be. Indeed, while there is strong evidence that native-spoken Irish is in dire straits, the language still exists: there are between 16,000 and slightly over

131

20,000 daily speakers, depending on the criteria considered, a situation that is more encouraging than that of Scottish Gaelic, for example. Obviously, the difference between native and non-native speakers is becoming smaller as the decline progresses, which might be an argument for an abandonment of a Gaeltacht policy in favour of a more general policy for all Irish speakers. However, research on the Gaeltacht demonstrates that the crisis in these areas is itself caused by a lack of appropriate measures, which I believe shows that the situation might still be improved, or at least contained, if urgent action is taken. In other words, it cannot be said that native-spoken Irish no longer exists or is not worth saving anymore if potentially beneficial measures are simply not being implemented. Moreover, as I have pointed out numerous times, the support for the Gaeltacht and for Irish as a community language is among the aims of current official policy. Failing to comply with such commitments would mean falling short of the obligations the government has towards its citizens; not forgetting that support for the Gaeltacht is still very strong among the population (see Section 4.3).

Hence, there is a need for greater effectiveness of the policy measures targeting these particular areas. Whether current plans will enable this, and progress will be made, will only become clear with time. Nonetheless, I would argue that the state ought to be more balanced in its commitment towards native speakers and the broad learner group, as the results of current policy evidence a clear need for intervention in the Gaeltacht more than outside of it. New speakers should remain one part of the language maintenance project, not its sole component, and the Gaeltacht needs to be given sufficient support to function as a viable language planning entity since it cannot be expected to survive on its own. If one speaker group is foregrounded, the survival of the language as a whole is at stake, precisely because, as the interviews highlighted, both native speakers and learners are needed. In this regard, I believe the following points need to be taken into account to ensure that the commitment towards the Gaeltacht is renewed:

• Generally speaking, native speakers of Irish need to be empowered and have their voices heard.

132

• Following Ó Giollagáin’s (2020) suggestions (see Section 7.1.6), an emergency commission for the Gaeltacht needs to be established.

• As reported in the literature, a Gaeltacht education system should be developed to help native speakers attain a sufficient level to use the language in a wider range of domains, as well as to pass it on to the following generations at a high level of fluency. This would also provide more opportunities to use Irish in a social context. To this effect, the Policy on Gaeltacht Education 2017-2022 is a huge improvement, but it does not solve the issue of subtractive bilingualism because L1 and L2 speakers still attend the same schools. It could therefore be useful to separate native speakers and learners in an immersion education context for certain activities. This would give L1 pupils the chance to use the language among themselves, while still creating situations in which L1 and L2 children can interact and grow together as speakers.

• Measures targeting the Gaeltacht as a sociological entity need to be prioritised: native speakers ought to be regarded as distinct from learners, in line with the literature, given that they have different needs.

• Language planning agencies need to be allocated sufficient funding to successfully assist the Gaeltacht. As reported by Grin (2003: 26), evidence suggests that the costs associated with the maintenance of diversity – which is positively correlated with welfare – are generally relatively low. Thus it would also make sense to invest more in the maintenance of native-spoken Irish.

• A monolingual Gaeltacht is of course neither a reasonable nor a realistic objective at this point. The goal should instead be to establish a context of balanced bilingualism in which English does not displace Irish early on among young speakers. A symbolic use of the language should be avoided in the Gaeltacht. Instead, bolstering its use as a vernacular among L1 speakers is crucial, especially among younger generations.

• The goals in terms of speaker numbers should be more in keeping with the reality of the sociological crisis described in the research. There is a

133

mismatch between the situation in the Gaeltacht and official objectives in the 20-Year Strategy, which appear to be excessively ambitious under current circumstances.

• Greater transparency is needed concerning the decline of native-spoken Irish: the public needs to be aware of the urgency of the situation, which should not be sugar-coated with the positive results obtained among L2 speakers. While positive achievements undoubtedly need to be highlighted, this should not distract from the seriousness of the issue.

• The Gaeltacht will also have to be supported in matters other than language:

for example, the economic development of these areas will continue to be crucial to ensure their demographic stability, as recommended in the CLS.

My suggestions are not intended to be precise policy recommendations, but rather starting points to tackle the main issues I believe emerged over the course of this research. Detailed, practical measures for the Gaeltacht have already been illustrated in the CLS (Ó Giollagáin et al. 2007) and in the Analysis of bilingual competence (Péterváry et al. 2014).