Opportunities

Acquiring a language makes little sense if there are no opportunities to use it in daily life. This is especially true when speakers make a huge effort to learn it, as in the case of a minority language such as Irish. Thus, since abilities decrease if a

114

language is not used for long periods (Mac Donnacha 2000: 19), creating such opportunities is essential to ensure that the school system is utilised to its full potential. The interview with O’Rourke (2020) (see in particular Section 7.2.5) brought up the scarcity of opportunities to use Irish: there is a lack of social spaces for willing speakers who want to use the language, and even native speakers in the Gaeltacht frequently have to travel long distances to find other speakers. If this lack of opportunities is linked to the disproportion between people who have some degree of ability in Irish and those who actually make regular use of it, it is reasonable to claim that some of these individuals are able and willing to use Irish, but simply do not have the chance to do so in their daily life (see for example Darmody and Daly 2015: x).

The state acknowledges this problem, as exemplified by the creation of Gaeltacht Service Towns, which are aimed at making the use of Irish possible in situations where it formerly was not (or at least not in a way that was convenient for people residing in the Gaeltacht). Irish Language Networks fill a similar gap for non-native speakers, as they are designed to create a social context for the use of the language in areas other than the Gaeltacht, in places where there are, however, some competent and motivated speakers. Other mechanisms targeting the creation of opportunities have been in place for a while. For example, the Official Languages Act 2003 sets a legal constraint for public bodies, which have to communicate in Irish if a citizen demands it. Grassroots initiatives also play an important role. For instance, Ó hIfearnáin (2013: 362–364) illustrates the case of the Tús Maith, a programme that provides support for parents who raise their children through Irish: activities in Irish (such as playgroups or cooking classes) are regularly organised to allow children to use the language more often, and Irish-speaking mothers visit other households to assist parents who struggle to bring up their children in the minority language. The programme receives public funding but is implemented by the community itself.

Yet the use of Irish remains weak in the social context compared to its dominant neighbour, as research findings and census data illustrate. An additional issue is that even where opportunities exist, they are not always of good quality. This is for

115

instance illustrated by the low level of Irish competence of some civil servants, an issue that I have mentioned earlier, citing Walsh (2012). Therefore it is important to make sure that Irish speakers have the possibility to use the language in everyday life and to do so in a way that is actually useful for them. Clearly, the influence of English and its pervasiveness in the life of Irish speakers is an enormous hurdle in this context. This is exemplified by the negative impact that English has on competence development among L1 speakers of Irish in the Gaeltacht. I would also contend that opportunities are strongly related to capacity: in order to use a language in several domains, it is necessary to be proficient enough to do so. At the same time, to become proficient it is necessary to practice the language with other speakers and use it regularly for various activities (not only at school or at home, but also at the supermarket, at the doctor’s, at work, for leisure activities, with friends, etc.).

As far as the tension between community-oriented language policy and ‘new speakerness’ is concerned, I believe it is difficult to truly compare the two approaches on the basis of the ‘opportunities’ criterion in that each current of thought is essentially focused on one group of speakers, but the presence of Irish in the societal domain has become so scarce in both cases that all speakers need opportunities to use it more often. Looking at the previous sections and chapters, I would perhaps argue that the main area of contention here is whether native speakers and learners are given equal opportunities to use the language. As an example, it is again possible to refer to the issue of subtractive bilingualism, which has been proved to be highly detrimental to the survival of the Gaeltacht, as L1 speakers of Irish struggle to use their first language in the societal domain: the lack of balanced bilingualism creates problems that extend outside the schools and affect the use of native-spoken Irish as a whole. As a result, if speakers are not able to speak the language proficiently, they cannot take advantage of the already rare opportunities to use it.

Péterváry et al. (2014: 245) explain that the state is neglecting its responsibilities towards the Gaeltacht because it fails to preserve the social density of Irish speakers, which is obviously essential for language use. This is problematic because, as

116

explained in the context of governance by Peters (2001 cited in Cardinal and Hudon 2001: 4), it is impossible to ensure public accountability if the state is not involved in the process through support. For this reason, I would argue that while some opportunities to use Irish do exist, native speakers are perhaps not given all the necessary prerequisites to actually capitalise on them. On the other hand, learners (who it should be remembered are not the collapsing component of the Irish-speaking community) seem to be better off in current policy, and census results are not the only indicators for this: for instance, they experience an additive form of bilingualism (see Section 5.2.2) and more generally benefit from the existence of the Gaeltacht, where they can improve their language skills. Moreover, the state has clearly shown its intention to cater to the needs of non-native speakers of Irish and make use of the abilities produced in the education system as a resource for the survival of the language: Irish Language Networks bring a Gaeltacht idea of community to learners to establish an officially recognised social context for the use of Irish, which was formerly basically inexistent and entirely dependent on the personal choices of individuals.

Regarding the latter example, I believe this development should be welcomed because it creates better chances for learners to actually improve their skills and progressively move from the cúpla focal (or any other level acquired at school) to a higher degree of ability. It provides much-needed opportunities for the social use of the language, as far as practicable in an English-speaking setting. Learners cannot be expected to become agents for the maintenance of the language without this type of official support, just as native speakers cannot do without the help of the state.

However, I would argue that the efforts made for learners are not matched by proportionally effective measures in the Gaeltacht, as the decline of native-spoken Irish would seem to indicate: the fact that native speakers already have a state-supported setting for the use of Irish does not mean that it is sufficient. Thus, the priorities set by the government are at times unclear or in contradiction with the overall goal of preserving the language both among L1 and L2 speakers. This situation reflects the issue of learner discursive dominance raised by Ó Giollagáin (2020).

117

To return to the comparison between the two approaches, it is hard to assess where the advantages and the drawbacks lie. Both speaker groups need more opportunities to use the language, as was also argued in the interviews, and so action must be taken in both contexts. Therefore I would not say that one approach is more suited than the other. Rather, what matters is how, for whom, and on what basis opportunities are made available, which in my opinion is also a moral question. For example, O’Rourke and Walsh (2015: 77) mention that the Gaeltacht functions as a

‘language-learning site for people who wish to improve their Irish’: this is undoubtedly positive, but at the same time it could be contended that learners benefit from a context for language use (or, to use the criteria referred to in this chapter, an ‘opportunity’) at the expense of native speakers. This is stressed by Ó Giollagáin (2009, para. 18), who writes that learners ‘cannot both use the native-speaking community as an acquisition resource and then fail to provide the language planning supports necessary for the continuation of Irish as a community language’.

Thus, I would conclude that what matters most is that access to opportunities is evenly balanced and does not favour any speaker group in particular, which is arguably not always the case at present.