1. INTRODUCTION

This survey drew on the experience of the results of the 1991 population census and special runs obtained from that census in establishing a series of sampling points which would allow the investigation of the extent to which the response to the census question concerning ability involves a manifestation of that ability by reference to use. These sampling points were selected in order to give a range of regional situations and, where possible, different occupational concentrations within the regional economy. Thus the respondents were sub-divided into ten sets, each one pertaining to a single sampling point. Each set consisted of respondents proportionally structured by reference to age, gender and social class in accordance with the relevant census data. Interviewees were selected by selecting telephone numbers randomly from the telephone directory for each region, establishing whether or not the person spoke Irish and if the answer was positive, organising a follow up interview on a face to face basis.

It is also imperative that the reader realise that the topics that are discussed below derive from the manner in which the theoretical orientation was constructed, and the way in which specific concepts and their measurements derive from that work. Thus these concepts become the basis for the discussion that follows. The reason for adopting such a structure is that, in the long run, it is the relationship between the data gathered and the concepts that they measure that allows us to establish the comparative perspective that derives, not from a comparison of the survey data, but from the construction of scales on the basis of that data.

Fewer than 3% of respondents were born outside of Ireland and 12% were born in the Republic of Ireland, the remainder having been born in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, for more than 97% of respondents, their parents had been born within Ireland, with about 12% of parents from the Republic of Ireland. As many as 98% of partners also came from within Ireland. Yet 80% of respondents claim that English was their first learnt language, with 17% claiming to have learnt both Irish and English simultaneously, and less than 3% claiming Irish as their first language. Similarly, 43% claimed that their parents spoke no Irish. Over 33% claimed to have learnt the language in the community, compared with 39% who learnt it through special courses, and 21% who learnt it through a personal relationship. As many as 80% stated that they also learnt Irish at school.

This suggests that the degree of spatial endogamy is high, this being indicative of migration structures. However it also suggests that the degree of language reproduction, which we have defined in terms of inter-generational transmission is limited to 17% or less, and that ability by and large derives from the processes of language production.

ENGLISH IRISH

ENGLISH:

IRISH:

The preceding table shows only a small decline in ability through three generations. It also shows that the extent of ability is limited, with only about 10% to 15% having a good command of Irish. When we then consider the cases where both partners, where applicable, have a good command of Irish, and are therefore in a position for the language to become the language of the family, the numbers are even smaller.

a. IRISH:

b. ENGLISH:

Levels of literacy are relatively high for those who understand and speak the language. This indicates that levels of extra familial and community support for the minority language are available for those who want it. It also indicates that ability levels tend to overlap, there being no tendency, for example, for people to be able to read and/or write the language but not to be able to speak it, or vice versa. In contrast, all levels of language ability in English were high for almost all of the respondents.

b. Language use. The majority of the respondents came from families where the parents spoke English together, with about 20% claiming that the parents spoke both Irish and English. There were only seven cases where Irish was the sole language of the family. This throws more light upon the preceding data with only 7% of cases pertaining to contexts in which Irish is the only or predominate family language:

However, there appears to be some indication in table 4 that the respondents used Irish more with their parents than their parents used the language together, although only about 3% used Irish exclusively with their parents. A slightly smaller number used the language exclusively with their siblings. Nonetheless there does seem to be continuity across generations by reference to language use.

The same appears to be true with reference to the partners:

The above table also indicates the small transition towards speaking Irish with their children, with about 4% using the language exclusively with their children, and a further 9% using both Irish and English together, as opposed to less than 1% using the language exclusively with any of their parents. The following table shows that only 22% of children use English only in their daily activities, with the remainder using Irish to some degree and only 5% using mostly Irish.

This is reiterated to some degree in the following table on household use of languages:

Over 30% used English only with their children, with a further 14% claiming to use both languages and only 6% using Irish only. It also indicates that only about 7% use Irish exclusively in the home, if the language of meals is an indication of such exclusivity, while a further 16% use at least some Irish on such occasions. Given the extent of non applicable responses the other sets of figures tend to reiterate this finding. Thus, for example, a little over 6% of partners use Irish exclusively together, the sine qua non of an exclusively Irish speaking household, and a further 16% use some Irish with their partner. Nonetheless it is interesting to note that about 12% use Irish exclusively with their children and a further 27% use some Irish with their children.

It is not surprising that the other indicator of home language, language used to answer the telephone yields such a high incidence of English only responses since it is indicative of the prevalence of English within the community and the state. The number who elicit a marked language behaviour amount to no more than 5% of the sample.

The data for past and present use of Irish in the community suggests that it can still be heard in the street slightly more often than in the past and still has a strong institutional component which has not changed drastically during the lifetime of the respondents. If anything there is a suggestion that use in the street has increased. On the other hand it is as well to remember that this is a subjective evaluation which must be contextualised by reference to the ideological context.

What the figures do suggest is that Irish tends to focus upon the private activities of civil society, involving Clubs and the Church. In this respect Irish is a language which carries significant symbolic purchase, and obliges the individual to solicit the context for learning and use. As such it is very much a basis for group structuration.

When we turn to the language of children's activities (table 10) we find that there a limited number of activities which focus upon the use of Irish. These involve sports where Gaelic Sports are important both in symbolic and language terms, the Feis or...***..; singing, drama and dancing which tend to focus upon the features of these activities which pertain to Irish rather than a British orientation. Most important perhaps is the summer school which is a means whereby parents send their children to the Gaeltacht, often in the south of Ireland in order to increase their knowledge of Irish. Many of these activities, for example, music, tend to be labelled 'traditional' by which is really meant non-normative. Nonetheless the labelling of something as 'traditional' as opposed to 'modern' does have a strong ideological significance.

It is also interesting to note that many children pursue these same activities through the medium of English or through the use of both languages. It does appear that even among those who claim a knowledge of Irish that most of the activities of their children are conducted through the medium of English.

The intention of the question which led to the data presented in table 11 was to ascertain the extent to which language ability was translated into practice. It involved establishing the extent to which interlocutors in specific dyadic relationships could both speak Irish and the extent to which, if this was the case, that the language was used. The data presented below does suggest that the question was misinterpreted to involve establishing the extent of the respondent's ability to use Irish in a specific context, rather than the extent to which language use was structured by context. This is evident from the answer to the question concerning the police. Most of the police in the north of Ireland are Protestants and would never countenance a knowledge nor use of Irish. Yet the data suggests that for a fairly high proportion of respondents, it would be possible to use Irish if both persons in the dialogue chose to do so. Thus this data must be handled with this in mind. In this respect it tends to be a question - or at least that part of it that refers to 'I can but don't' - about the respondents language ability. This part of the data indicates that more than a third of the respondents could handle a variety of language use contexts. On the other hand the part which pertains to 'I can and do' does refer to actual use. This indicates that for those with the ability the contexts within which use actually takes place tend to be those situations within a fairly closed community where either social activity focuses or where a knowledge of the specific person in the occupation or occupational role is essential. The data may also indicate that those people who did respond positively to this part of the question were actually seeking out specific people for specific functions, this being part of the constitution of both language group and community. The interlocutors who figure most prominently in this respect are specific individuals such as the doctor, newsagent, restaurateur etc. or pertain to institutions which are viewed as having a positive relationship to the language and the actual community - the church, the local pub, the school etc.

Table 11: POSSIBILITY AND ACTUAL USE OF IRISH

There is some room for optimism with reference to education as an agency of language production or reproduction. The following table indicates that the number of children who have received some of their primary school education through the medium of Irish is quite high, with as many as a third having received some of their education through the medium of Irish even if English was also involved. On the other hand only 4% received education at this level exclusively through the medium of Irish. By reference to Secondary education the figures are even higher for mixed language education, with as many as 59% of respondents having received some of their education at the secondary level through the medium of Irish. What is rare, once again, is an all-Irish education.

The following tables suggest some negative identity which limits the desire for Irish school education by parents. Table 13 suggests that for most of the respondents the factor of language choice did not apply. This will of course be true of those without children but it may also be true of others who chose not to answer the question. Of those who did answer the question a high proportion claimed that the choice was not available to them, while there was also a considerable number who preferred their children to be educated through the medium of English. Thus there would appear to be some scope for the expansion of Irish medium education but there is also a barrier in terms of the tendency for many parents to feel that Irish does not belong to the world of education.

Table 14 indicates that the choice available is extremely limited with over three quarters of the respondents claiming that they had no choice either at primary or secondary level. When compared with other language groups such as the Welsh within the same state and society these figures are remarkably low, suggesting that the state views different language groups in different ways, while also perhaps responding to the extent of demand in terms of protest within different language areas. Among the 25% who did claim to have a choice at primary level, almost two thirds claimed that provision was available within their customary catchment area. At the secondary level only 19% claimed to have any choice, and 60% of these claimed an availability within the customary catchment area.

Lack of provision however does not seem to be as much of a problem as it might be, as suggested by the following data:

There is a definite consistency in the data rather than the customary tendency to teach the science subjects through the medium of dominant language whereas the minority language is reserved for the arts subjects. The deviations from the general trend in these figures pertain to 'business studies' and 'languages' which do not appear to be so widely taught through the medium of Irish, 'Irish' which appears to be taught as a subject with considerable use of the language even if it is not exclusive, the same being true of 'religious education'.

The other agency that might be expected to produce and reproduce the language is the church, especially here where 78% of respondents attend church with some degree of regularity, and where the Roman Catholic religion plays such a symbolic role by reference to the politics of belonging.

The problem arises when we look at the limited use of Irish in church activities. Most of the Irish used is in private prayer and reading. Evidently the vast majority of public religious activity is dominated by the state language.

This must indicate that whereas the Catholic church does not prevent the use of Irish in its activities, neither does it actively seek to promote the language. Rather, the limited exclusivity of religious practice through the medium of Irish must be the result of a very limited number of committed individuals within the church. Indeed, the larger incidence of use of Irish in private prayer indicates that the public is ahead of institutional provision in this respect.

Turning to the broader context of community activity we begin to obtain a clear indication of the relevance of Irish for such activities. the activities which are regarded as 'Irish' seem to enjoy a fair degree of support and are not merely fringe activities:

Yet it does seem that there is a substantial proportion of Irish speakers who involve themselves only at the margins of such activities.

The preceding information about the use of the language in the community is reflected in the following table:

a. Ability:

b. Use:

It indicates that while a substantial number of respondents acknowledge that all of their friends speak Irish few of them use the language exclusively with their friends, with 45% claiming to use any Irish at all with their friends. The same appears to be true by reference to neighbours, although the level of ability is lower in this group. In this sense it would appear that Irish is a community language, even if only in a limited sense. There would appear to be small nucleus of respondents who are part of a tightly knit network of Irish speakers and a large component which do not have any friends who speak Irish. Given the tight knit nature of the communities and the tendency for such communities to be segregated by reference to religion, it must mean that Irish language ability is a peripheral aspect of community identity and structuration. Between these two extremes is a body of respondents who are involved in networks where a certain amount of Irish ability exists but does not predominate. It must also be recognised that the preceding data already suggests that the context within which Irish becomes marked is limited, and it would not be surprising to find, as a consequence that the figures under represent the extent of language ability, even if that ability is limited.

Turning to a consideration of language use it is clear that the incidence is considerably less than by reference to ability. This indicates that the contexts within which can be used are limited, even if the ability is available. The main focus would appear to be the sports and cultural activities where there is a much higher focus of language ability and also of use. These would appear to be the context within which the language serves as an integrating force. However, even here it would appear that Irish is not the normative feature that one finds in other minority language groups.

This is sustained by reference to what the respondents said about language use in their various social and community activities. It is clear that the formal use of Irish is highly focused. It tends to predominate by reference to specific cultural institutions such as the Gaelic League, and the local Feis, and to a lesser extent the school and the Church. It is of less significance by reference to drama, dancing, the pub, the GAA and informal social networks. In terms of individual activities Irish language newspapers stand out. There are also some realms of social life where Irish appears to be systematically excluded - the Rotary Club, Round Table, Lions and, unsurprisingly, the British legion. It is also significant that it is possible to undertake virtually all of the activities entirely through the medium of English.

If we now rank only those cases in which more than 50 valid answers have been obtained, by increasing monolingual presence of English, we can easily see in which activities Irish predominates:

The exclusive use of Irish is systematically missing except from specific Irish language activities and from those activities performed with close friends or family: IRISH NEWSPAPERS, GAELIC LEAGUE, LOCAL FEIS. Evidently Irish is moving away from a community language and towards a private, personal language which is also spoken in institutions especially created for the purpose.

There appears to be little relevance of Irish in the world of work. Fewer than ten percent of the respondents worked for companies or institutions which had a fully implemented Irish language policy, while those with any kind of Irish language policy were also small in number. Most of those who answered positively to this question were working as Irish language teachers.

This situation was reiterated by reference to information concerning the relevance of the Irish language for their own work. A surprisingly large proportion - 20% - claimed that Irish was either essential or useful in their work. This evaluation spanned all ability contexts. This corresponds to the proportion of respondents who answered positively across the range of questions pertaining to language use.