A Chairde Gael,
Tá an-áthas orm a bheith anseo inniu i gColáiste na Tríonóide ar chuireadh ó Choiste na
hÉireann den Bhiúró Eorpach do Theangacha Neamhfhorleathana le labhairt ag an
seimineár seo ar reachtaíocht teanga.
Tá mé fíor-shásta an deis seo a fháil le heolas a roinnt libh faoi na cúraimí atá ormsa mar
Choimisinéir Teanga , faoin ról a bheas ag an oifig nua atá á bunú againn, faoin dearcadh
atá agam ar na cúraimí a bhéas orainn agus na dúshláin atá romhainn amach.
Tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh muid ag foghlaim freisin ó na dea-chleachtais
idirnáisiúnta maidir le cur chun cinn an dátheangachais agus dá bhrí sin tá fáilte ar leith
agamsa roimh bhaill na toscaireachta atá tagtha chugainn ón bhFionlainn inniu.
Tá mise ceaptha i mbun na gcúraimí mar Choimisinéir Teanga le thart ar dhá sheachtain
déag anois, ach tá Acht Teanga i bhfeidhm sa bhFionlainn ón mbliain 1922 – Acht a
leasaíodh i dtús na bliana seo.
Mar sin, tá bunreachtaíocht Teanga na Fionlainne ann le breis agus ceithre scór bliain
…chomh sean le neamhspleáchas an stáit seo. Is cinnte go gcaithfeadh suim a bheith ag
duine atá dhá seachtain déag i mbun oibre anseo sa mhéid atá le rá ag dream a bhfuil
ceithre scor bliain de thaithí acu sa réimse céanna oibre.
Is léir gur dóiche go bhfuil neart le foghlaim againne ó réamhshampla na Fionlainne cé
go gcaithfear a admháil go bhfuil bundifríochtaí idir chás na Gaeilge agus an Bhéarla
anseo agus cás na Sualainnise agus na Fionlainnise acusan.
Nuair a tugadh cuireadh dom labhairt libh anseo inniu d’iarr an Coiste eagraithe orm cuid
mhór den mhéid a bheadh le rá agam a chur in bhur láthair i mBéarla agus tá mé mar sin
ag dul i muinín an dara teanga oifigiúil anois.
When I was invited by the Irish Committee of the European Bureau of Lesser Used
Languages to address you today I was asked to speak primarily in English.
I should point out at the outset that Irish is my first language – I was brought up in a
Gaeltacht or Irish speaking region in north West Donegal and I have lived for the past 25
years in another Gaeltacht area – in Conamara in the west of Ireland.
1
I encountered English for the first time when I went to school but have been
“encountering” it every day of my life since then.
As I have said in Irish a few moments ago I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak
to you this morning and I thank the organisers for their kind invitation.
I am particularly happy to meet the Finnish delegation, and to learn from their
experiences in the area of language legislation and bilingual practice.
I was appointed as Coimisinéir Teanga about 12 weeks ago under new legislation enacted
last year. I am conscious that Finland has had similar legislation for over 80 years –
legislation that has been updated and amended recently. Obviously someone with a mere
12 weeks experience in this line of work has a substantial amount of catching up to do –
so, I look forward to hearing later of some of the lessons learned in Finland.
This morning I would like to use the time allotted to me to explain some aspects of the
role of the language commissioner under the new Official Languages Act…. to give you
an overview of my own perception of the work that lies ahead…the attitude I will adopt
in dealing with the duties of the office .. and to note for you some of the challenges we
will have to address.
I should point out that I regard as an absolute honour and a privilege that I should have
been invited by Minister Éamon Ó Cuív on behalf of the Government to be nominated after votes in both the Dáil and Seanad - for appointment by the President as Coimisinéir
Teanga.
I intend fulfilling that role with enthusiasm, commitment and dedication.
In the weeks since my appointment I have been concerned primarily with two issues – the
establishment of the physical office – the usual infrastructure needed by any new
organisation – and secondly the development of a public profile for that office. This has
involved addressing audiences – primarily Irish language groups -in various parts of the
country to explain the workings of the new legislation. It has also involved a substantial
number of media interviews in Irish and English.
The office of An Coimisinéir Teanga is, in law, an independent office – something to
which I attach significant importance. I have over the last few weeks met with holders of
a number of other independent offices including the Ombudsman and the director of her
Office - and have benefited greatly form their advice. I would like to pay particular
tribute to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs – to its Minister, its
Secretary General and to its entire staff for the excellence of their co-operation in
establishing this new office.
I have also had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian Languages Commissioner Dr
Dyane Adam here in Dublin a fortnight ago and have established a very positive
relationship with that office – Canada has had an Official Languages Act and a Language
Commissioner for over 30 years and has taken great strides forward in this area of
bilingual public services.
I have visited Northern Ireland where I met a large cross-section of people involved with
language issues.
2
I am now in the process of writing to the heads of all of the public bodies here who come
under the terms of the Official Languages Act – and there are 650 public bodies involved
from Government departments to local authorities, health boards, semi-state companies
etc.
One of the functions of An Coimisinéir Teanga - to which I will be referring in greater
detail later - is the provision of advice to any public body in relation to its obligations
under the new Act. On this point we are telling the heads of the public bodies that we are
very much “open for business”.
Before we can look ahead to new challenges it is important that we understand precisely
where we’re at - in relation to the language situation here – and to understand how we
got to the position we’re in.
From the founding of the Irish State over 80 years ago the Irish language has – officially
at least - been accorded premier status.
The first constitution and the new revised constitution of 1937 both confirmed the
position of Irish as the national and first official language of the country.
Article 8 of our constitution has 3 clauses 1 –
(1) The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.
(2) The English language is recognised as a second official language.
(3) Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the
said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State,
or in any part thereof.
The courts have interpreted the constitutional status of Irish on a number of occasions
over the years In 1934 the then Chief Justice – Mr Justice Kennedy – noted that Irish was “the common
speech of every Irish man down to the comparatively recent times, when it yielded before
immense pressure, compulsion in the schools, social, political and commercial forces”. 2
In an important and still quoted judgement he said :
“None of the organs of the State, legislative, executive or judicial may derogate from the
pre-eminent status of the Irish language as the national language of the State without
offending against the Constitutional position…” 3
That interpretation was referred to as recently as April 2001 in another Supreme Court
judgement. In that case Mr Justice Hardiman said –
1
Bunreacht na hÉireann
Ó Foghludha-v-McClean (1934) IR 469
3
Ibid.
2
3
“In my view the Irish language which is the national language and at the same time the
first official language of the State cannot (at least in the absence of a law of the sort
envisaged by Article 8.3) be excluded from any part of the public discourse of the nation
or the official business of the State or any of its emanations. Nor can it be treated less
favourably in these contexts that the second official language. Nor can those who are
competent and desirous of using it as a means of expression or communication be
precluded from or disadvantaged in so doing in any national or official context.” 4
The constitutional imperative was, and still is, there. However the sad reality is that the
situation was and is very different in the real world we live in.
Apart from the clear constitutional status of the Irish language there was also strong
political support at the foundation of the State for the protection and promotion of the
language.
The minutes of the meeting of the Provisional Government of the 15 May 1922 records
the following in relation to Michael Collins:
“Mr Collins pointed out that it was essential that each Department should become
thoroughly Irish, and that the Forms and Circulars etc. associated with the old
administration should be altered to suit the new conditions. The use of the Irish language
should be introduced wherever possible.”5
A circular on the 8th August 1929 directed on behalf of the then Minister for Finance that
the following instructions be conveyed to all departments:
1. All letters in Irish received in government Offices from members of the
public should be replied to in Irish. Similarly, the Irish forms of surnames
and addresses, if supplied by correspondents, should be used in replies.
2. Advertisements of vacant posts should not be sent for publication
bilingually in the Press. All advertisements relating to posts for which a
competent knowledge of Irish is prescribed as essential should appear in
Irish only.
3. Forms used for the acknowledgement of communications should be
printed in Irish only. Other common forms issued by the Government
Departments, with the nature of the contents of which the public are by
custom acquainted, e.g., receipts for money payments, should, as far as
practicable, also be in Irish only.
4. All officers located in Irish-speaking districts should, so far as practicable,
use Irish when communicating, whether verbally or in writing, on official
business with members of the public who know Irish.6
Had those instructions been followed then - and since - there would have been little or no
need for an Official Languages Act or a language commissioner.
Another clear example of the political leadership’s desire to promote the language in
public life can be found in a fascinating statement issued by the then Taoiseach Éamon de
4
Hardiman J.-The Supreme Court (Judicial Review) 100/98 JR 4 th April 2001 pg.12
Provisional Government Minutes 15.5.22, Uimhir S9604
6
Ó Riain, S., Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919-1985, Bord na Gaeilge, Dublin, 1994,pg. 112
5
4
Valera in April 1940 in which he implored the country’s civil servants to unite in setting
the agenda in the promotion of Irish.7 At a time when Europe was at war Mr De Valera
was pleading with this country’s public service that it would be a fatal mistake to leave
the revival of Irish until “after the war”. He set out his vision but his fine rhetoric appears
to have fallen on deaf ears.
Indeed, despite the clearly expressed sentiment of various political leaders the tone and
trend changed.
A memo from the Department of an Taoiseach in 1948 reads –
“At a meeting of the Gov. held on 14/5/48, a proposal of the M. of Finance (put forward
as an economy measure) to “drop bilingual advertising and bilingual forms and reduce
bilingual printing” was amended to read:
“Discontinue bilingual advertising and bilingual forms and reduce bilingual printing to a
minimum”.
The amended proposal was approved”8. That was on the 14th of May 1958. Today is the
14th of May 2004. That significant Government decision to roll back on the use of Irish
was taken 56 years ago today!
The position of Irish in subsequent years is chronicled in an essay by the writer and
academic Alan Titley published recently in the collection “Who needs Irish?”Mr Titley says: “There was certainly no new initiatives to promote the language in the
1950’s. From the 1960’s on it was a fairly rapid retreat, certainly in education. The
number of Irish-medium primary schools declined from 420 to 160 between 1961 and
1979.Secondary education suffered similarly just at that vital time when free secondary
schooling for all became a reality. An organisation to remove Irish as an essential
subject in the Leaving Certificate and for positions in the civil service was largely
successful. Small ‘unviable’ Gaeltacht schools were closed, rupturing delicate societies.
The preparatory colleges which ensured a steady supply of fluent Irish-speakers into the
teaching profession were discontinued. The Government unbelievably refused to request
that Irish be made an official language of the European Community when we joined up.
The standard of Irish required for members of An Garda Síochána was lowered. It looks
like a litany of dismantling, and it is.”9
Some innovative steps were taken over the years – many as a result of continued
campaigning by Irish language organisations and individuals which bore results with the
establishment of Irish medium schools, a Gaeltacht radio service and more recently an
Irish language television service. The establishment of a separate Department of the
Gaeltacht and the development of a Gaeltacht Authority were also important.
A significant step taken in 1993 in regard to the provision of State services through Irish
to the public saw the then language promotion board Bord na Gaeilge produce guidelines
for all government departments, and other public bodies in relation to language policy.
7
Ráiteas ón Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera, faoin Státseirbhís agus Gluaiseacht na Gaeilge, Aibreán
1940
8
Ó Riain, S., Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919-1945, Bord na Gaeilge, Dublin, 1994,pg. 208
9
Alan Titley, ’How did we get Here from There?’ in Ciarán Mac Murchaidh (ed.), Who needs Irish?
Dublin, Veritas Publications, 2004, pg. 20
5
These guidelines were voluntary non-statutory. Apart from some notable exceptions of
organisations that adopted them as best practice they were generally ignored.
These guidelines did provide one valuable lesson – that non-statutory obligations can
easily be ignored.
It was that decision of non-compliance with the voluntary guidelines coupled with an
organised campaign by Irish language groups and concerned individuals over a long
period of years that resulted in the enactment of the Official Languages Act last year.
The Act is now in law and is being introduced on a phased basis. I believe it to be a very
significant piece of legislation. It gives clearly defined rights to Irish speakers and places
firm language duties or obligations on all state companies and public bodies. Some of
those obligations, including dealing with correspondences and the publication of policy
documents and annual reports in Irish or bilingually are statutory obligations. Others,
including the use of both languages in advertising and signage by public bodies will be
made by legally binding regulations. A third tier of the Act involves the agreement of
language schemes or language plans by public bodies in relation to services in Irish.
All in all, the new Act goes some way in levelling the playing field and creating a space
for Irish in the public life of this country.
One of the primary roles of the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga is, I believe, to act as an
agency for change in these matters.
The essential functions of the office are to monitor the implementation of the Act, to
ensure compliance and to investigate complaints. The Commissioner may also provide
advice or assistance to the public in relation to their rights under the Act – this, I would
imagine, should include public information campaigns, and publications.
The office of An Coimisinéir Teanga may also provide advice to public bodies in relation
to their obligations under the Act. Not alone would I hope to provide such advice in
relation to compliance with the Act, I would also hope, over time, to compile codes of
best practice in relation to Irish and bilingual services from public bodies.
A final function allocated to the office is the investigation of complaints of noncompliance with provisions relating to the status or use of Irish in other Acts.
This last function – under section 21(f) – widens the scope of the work significantly – I
should point out that there is a large body of legislation included here – we have already
at a very preliminary stage identified at least 60 different Acts which include clauses in
relation the status or use of Irish – including Acts covering education, planning,
broadcasting and many, many more aspects of public life.
The powers or authority given to the office could be compared to those of the office of
the Ombudsman.
6
The commissioner may require an appropriate person to furnish relevant information or
to attend before him and failure to do so, or to hinder or obstruct the work of the
commissioner would be a prosecutable offence.
The ultimate sanction open to the office of the Commissioner would, in the case of a
public body refusing to implement recommendations made in the aftermath of an inquiry,
be to report that failure to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
This, I gather, is termed “naming and shaming”. In a situation where there is no
alternative in securing compliance I would not hesitate to use this authority.
However, my personal belief is that much more can be achieved by a practical, balanced
and sensible approach based on partnership and co-operation.
I want to point out very clearly today that the Official Languages Act has the same legal
standing as any other law enacted in this country. It is not a guideline, or a voluntary
code. It is not a set of “á la carte” measures where a public body can pick and choose,
decide to implement some and leave aside others. It is a piece of legislation which
attracted, in its final form, the support of both Government and opposition in both
Houses. In fact the amendments tabled by the opposition parties during the committee
stage of the Bill often sought to increase the level of service to be provided in Irish.
The role of An Coimisinéir Teanga is, as I said earlier, to ensure compliance with this
new law. It is a duty that I take most seriously and I am personally committed to doing
my utmost to achieve that compliance.
There is one point I want to make crystal clear today to all public servants and to
everyone employed in the 650 public companies in this country – The Official Languages
Act poses no threat whatsoever to any individual public servant. It does not re-introduce
compulsory Irish in any way, shape or form. But what is does do – is to challenge the
management of the country’s public service to provide an adequate level of service in
Irish to meet their legal requirement and the needs of the public. In some cases this may
require a change of mindset and has the potential to be the most significant act of
language planning ever undertaken in this country.
I have every confidence in the management of the public service to rise to the challenge
involved. They have proven in the past when faced with similar challenges such as the
introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, that they have dealt effectively and
professionally with the challenges involved and have, in the spirit of quality customer
care and best practice, ensured their compliance with the appropriate legislation. I expect
nothing less of them in relation to the Official Languages Act.
I would now, for a few moments like to address the issue of costs since it is one that has
been raised with me a number of times, primarily by journalists in the English language
media. The bilingual publication of policy documents and annual reports is the one most
often cited.
Yes, there will be some additional costs involved in moving from a monolingual system
to one offering some small element of bilingualism.
7
I do not, however, believe that the cost will be in any way significant and it will
constitute at most only a very minimal percentage of the budget of any public body.
Many public bodies make use of the services of commercial translations companies.
Translation costs are not exorbitant and as someone who worked in journalism for nearly
25 years and often had recourse to the annual reports of various public bodies I am
certain that in the overall budget expended by many organisations in producing these
documents that the translation costs will not be as significant as some might like to
suggest.
It is also important to understand that this new legislation has been in the pipeline for
many years – the first version of the Bill was published in the year 2000 although the
issue has been debated for nearly 30 years. Therefore no-one can suggest that this new
requirement is something that has come out of the blue at them – it has been well flagged
– and I assume that the management of many public bodies will have factored these
additional – even if minimal - costs into their budgets.
The issue of the costs of providing forms in Irish is one that has already been adjudicated
on in the High Court in the judgement by the late Mr Justice O’Hanlon in the Ó Murchú
case: He ruled as follows –
“It is clear that money was spent on providing the English version of the forms and it
appears to me that fairness is not being accorded to those members of the public wishing
to conduct business through the medium of Irish unless similar facilities are made
available to them”.10
Mr Justice Hardiman referred to this ruling in the Supreme Court in April of 2001 and
added “ I entirely agree with that view”.11
Mr Justice Hardiman went on later to make some additional points in his judgement
which are appropriate to quote when dealing with the issues of the costs involved in the
provision of services to Irish speakers- He said :
“The modern State necessarily imposes many onerous duties on citizens in relation to
various aspects of life from tax compliance to planning law. Many of these duties are
irksome, time consuming and expensive to comply with, but compliance is properly
required. Equally the State itself must comply with its obligations, particularly those
enshrined in the Constitution and can no more be heard to complain that such
compliance is irksome or onerous than can the individual citizen. In particular, the State
cannot be heard to complain that its non-compliance over a period of decades have now
rendered present compliance even more difficult”.12
In relation to the costs that may fall on public bodies due to their new statutory obligation
I should mention that some of these costs may easily be of a “once-off” nature. I am
thinking in particular in the context of a local authority which might have previously only
had an English language form – to tax a car for example. Once a bilingual version has
Ó’Murchú-v-Registrar of Companies and the Minister for Industry and Commerce I.R., S.R.
(1980-1998) 42
11
Hardiman J.-The Supreme Court (Judicial Review) 100/98 JR 4th April 2001 pg.13
12
Ibid., pgs. 30/31
10
8
been produced it is simply a matter of repeating the order and that cost becomes
absolutely immaterial over a period of time. It is patently obvious as well, that a
translated form of that nature for one local authority is the template for all other local
authorities and would reduce the cost to a bare minimum.
I mentioned that the issue of the cost of providing services bilingually is one that has
been raised with me by journalists in the English language media. I note that one
journalist who talked to me on the issue had a simple “take” on the situation in his
published piece – He suggested and I quote
“That being the case, then, why should Ireland proceed with an Official Languages Act
that will put further pressure on public bodies’ budgets in order to serve just a fraction of
the population who, in truth, could manage perfectly fine in English”13
It struck me as having the same subtlety as Marie Antoinette’s alleged remark “Let them
eat cake”. I wonder what sort of message that would give to people who have been told
by the constitution and by political leaders down through the generations that the Irish
language was important…the suggestion seemed to be that it might be important….yeah,
but if you have a bit of English at all, then speak English to us ! It would be paradoxical
in the extreme for a country to invest in the teaching of Irish but to effectively ban its use
by citizens in their public dealings with the state and its various organisations.
I’d like to say a few words about another issue raised with me by members of the media –
will there be a demand for services in Irish?
This, I believe is an important and challenging matter.
The most recently published census figures show that 1.57 million people here regard
themselves as having Irish. Few people would believe that all of those are fluent or
regular users of the language – however, they are hugely important in so far as their wish
to be classed as Irish speakers however limited their grasp of the language is, suggests a
commitment and support for the language. There is no doubt in my mind – and the census
and various other studies support this – that at least 100,000 adults here use Irish on a
daily basis – a minority certainly, but a substantial or significant minority.
These figures are important in the debate about demand for services in Irish.
In a paper delivered to a conference some years ago Mr Joe Mc Donagh of NUIG who
during his years with Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, did sterling work in relation to the
Official Languages Act talks of the perception Irish speakers have with regard to the
language of business in many state companies or public bodies. He talked of the concept
of “default language” 14 – that English was – and was perceived to be- the one and only
language option in dealing with the vast majority of public bodies.
That being the case, Irish speakers simply abandoned their personal wishes, choices and
rights and used what was seen by them to be the default language of the State.
The Irish Examiner – Monday 03/05/04 pg.4 “Lost in Translation” by Paul O’Brien
“Power differentials in Language Planning” Joe Mac Donnacha NUIG- delivered at the World
Congress on Language Policies, Barcelona 2002
13
14
9
This is the position from which we now have to row back. It is not something that will
happen overnight. I mentioned earlier a meeting with Canadian Language Commissioner
here in Dublin a fortnight ago: she referred to the fact that although their legislation has
been in place for over 30 years that she still regards it as “ a work in progress”.
The historical lack of services in Irish and the public’s readiness to consequently accept
services in English nearly always without complaint suggests to me that our office may
not be overburdened in the early years by formal complaints under the terms of this new
Act.
In relation to the level of demand for services in Irish I believe a number of points to be
relevant – services in Irish have to be genuinely and openly available before people will
use them – they must not be seen to be provided grudgingly or reluctantly – and, most
importantly of all, they must have the same high level of quality customer service
available as would be found with services provided in English.
One small example –spanning a whole generation- might help to illustrate this point –
Neasa Ni Chinnéide in her essay “A Dangerous Silence” 15talks of enquiring as a young
woman why her name was registered in English on her birth certificate. It was explained
to her that the nurse who wrote it down in the nursing home where she was born simply
refused to write her name in Irish. A few weeks ago I met a confident and happy young
woman from the Conamara Gaeltacht who had given birth some weeks previously to her
fourth child.
She is a native Irish speaker and has a strong attachment to the language. She told me that
when the time came to register the child’s name in the maternity hospital she was
presented with a form completely in English. She asked the health worker involved if
there was an Irish version of the form and expressed a wish to register the new-born
baby’s name in Irish. She was courteously and promptly given the appropriate form in
Irish. When she had filled up the details in Irish a niggling doubt entered her mind – her
previous experiences of dealing with sections of the public services in Irish came
flooding back – the issue of registering her baby’s name was too important to left to
chance – so in addition to the Irish form she filled a second one in English – to be sure to
be sure. This lack of confidence in the State’s ability to deal adequately with services in
Irish is born out of vast years of bad experiences and to remedy that is a formidable
challenge.
In referring to the media earlier, I would like to comment for a moment on an important
point made by Dr Peadar Ó Flatharta of Fiontar DCU at a recent conference in Galway
which was amplified in an insightful article by the writer and journalist Pól Ó Muirí of
the Irish Times.
The essence of Dr Ó Flatharta’s argument was that few outside the small world of the
Irish language would know of the aims, wishes or objectives of the language movement.
He said “ I do not know that any of the social partners know what we intend to do and
the reasons we have for advancing the language and its importance in the country’s
life”.16
Neasa Ní Chinnéide, ’A Dangerous Silence’ in Ciarán Mac Murchaidh (ed.), Who needs Irish?
Dublin, Veritas Publications, 2004, pg. 35
16
Cé a cheannóidh plean? – Excerpt from a speech given by Dr. Peadar Ó Flatharta, Stiúrthóir
Gníomhach FIONTAR, DCU at Tóstal na Gaeilge, Galway 28/02/04 (as translated by Irish Times)
15
10
Mr Ó Muirí in his commentary noted the difficulty that groups have in presenting their
thoughts and arguments to the wider public via the English language media – Hence too,
the ease with which Irish speakers can be labelled “language fanatics”. “After all, you
know what they are going to say before they don’t say it!” he commented.17
The central point here is that it is very important that the public in general should be
given every opportunity to understand that what Irish speakers are seeking is simply the
self same language rights already afforded without question to English speakers. No one
is seeking special privileges. Without those basic rights there would be a clear and
imminent danger that Irish could be portrayed as an optional extra, an added luxury.
I firmly believe that the negative stereotypical image of Irish speakers often promoted by
certain elements of the media is unfair. That image would often suggest that Irish
speakers are old fashioned, narrow minded, awkward and cantankerous.
I believe that the real picture is vastly different – many Irish speakers are modern liberal,
broad minded people who regard the protection and promotion of the language to be
hugely important – in the same way as other modern, broadminded people would favour
the preservation of wildlife, heritage, fauna and flora, the world’s atmosphere, lands and
oceans.
The academic, linguist and Irish speaker Prof James Mc Closkey of the University of
California in Santa Cruz in his essay Voices Silenced –published here in Dublin in 2001
refers to the Ethnologue project18 which has documented the World’s languages. In the
year 2000 a total of 6,809 distinct languages had been enumerated by that project. Some
of these languages were practically extinct with the only remaining speakers in single
digits.
According to Prof Mc Closkey linguists agree that approximately 90% of the World’s
languages will disappear in the next 100 years. Our present total of 6,809 languages will
have reduced to less than 700.
The linguistic experts quoted in Voices Silenced have earmarked 2 different criteria for
the survival of a language into the next century; that it has either state support or 100,000
speakers.
I am glad to say that the Irish language has both of those requirements. So while we
should take no pleasure whatsoever in the fact that 6,000 languages will disappear off the
face of the Earth in the next 100 years nor be complacent that our battle is already won
we should take some small degree of comfort in the fact that we really do have a fighting
chance of survival.
The survival of Irish as a living community language in Gaeltacht areas is another matter
entirely. The latest Census records slightly more than 62,000 Irish speakers in Gaeltacht
areas in 2002.19 In comparison there are 350 million native speakers of English in the
world. By the way, for every one native English speaker in the world there are more than
The Irish Times – Friday 19/03/04 “New clarity needed on Irish Language issue” by P ól Ó Muirí
Mc Closkey, J.,Guthanna in Éag- An Mhairfidh an Ghaeilge Beo? Cois Life, Dublin, 2001, pg14
19
Census 2002-Vol. 11 Irish Language.
17
18
11
3 native speakers of Chinese- the total number there is one thousand one hundred million
(1,100 million).20
Prof. Mc Closkey whose work I’ve mentioned earlier also addresses the issue of the role
of children in preserving a threatened language –
“It takes only some barely detectable shift of pressures to causes children to throw off the
language of the community. When children do this, they do it with great speed, great
determination and great ruthlessness. The transition is often complete before the larger
community is aware of what is happening or has had time to take stock of what the
implications will be. But once this step is taken there is no return”21
Mr Mc Closkey later deals with the consequence of the loss of a language –
“Every language that succumbs to the economic, political, and cultural pressures being
applied all over the globe today, takes to the grave with it an encyclopaedia of histories,
mythologies, jokes, songs, philosophies, riddles, superstitions, games, sciences,
hagiographies – the whole cumulative effort of a people over centuries to understand the
circumstances of its own existence. It is also an enormously frightening thought that nine
tenths of that accumulation of wisdom, speculation and observation is to be lost within
the next century or so. The corresponding narrowness of the world-views that remain is
equally frightening”.22
I see signs of hope for the future of Irish in the growth of Irish medium schools, the
interest in the Irish language media such as Raidió na Gaeltachta and TG4, the popularity
of various language festivals and events and now new statutory rights for Irish speakers
in the Official Languages Act. However, the position of Irish in the Gaeltacht is far from
certain, the teaching of Irish in our schools deserves much closer examination and there
are other negative signs which could easily leave a person swaying between optimism
and pessimism.
As I said earlier one of the central roles of the office of An Coimisinéir Teanga is to
ensure compliance by the State with the new Official Languages Act. Here’s a little
dilemma in relation to compliance with the law I’d like to leave with you this morning.
As most of you know a new law which bans smoking in places of work including pubs or
bars was introduced here recently. It appears to me that the compliance rates are fantastic.
But I’ve heard a story of a certain pub in the West of Ireland where they occasionally
disregard another law – the one in relation to the closing time of pubs – and where on
special occasions – they might stay open slightly later than allowed for by law. However,
even when they serve these after hours drinks in non-compliance with the law they insist
that customers go outside for a cigarette in compliance with the new “no-smoking” law.
Surely another formidable example of an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
A Chairde glacaim buíochas libh as ucht éisteacht go foighneach liom ar an ócáid seo.
(críoch)
Seán Ó Cuirreáin/ Seimineár An EBLUL/ Coláiste na Tríonóide / 14.05.04.
20
Katzner, K. ,The Languages of the World Routledge 1995
ibid., pg. 15
22
ibid., pgs.36/37
21
12