This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 29 October 2014, At: 08:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingualand MulticulturalDevelopmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Irish Speakers in NorthernIreland, and the GoodFriday AgreementM. Nic CraithPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: M. Nic Craith (1999) Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland,and the Good Friday Agreement, Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 20:6, 494-507, DOI: 10.1080/01434639908666386

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434639908666386

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:02

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland, and theGood Friday Agreement

M. Nic CraithInstitute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, 1 Abercromby Square, LiverpoolL69 3BX, UK

This essay begins with an exploration of the extent of the Irish language community inNorthern Ireland and questions the validity of the census results of 1991. The authorpays particular attention to the concept of a mother tongue and its relevance forspeakers of Irish in the United Kingdom. Brief consideration is also given to the associ-ation of the language with the Catholic nationalist tradition. According to the GoodFriday Agreement, linguistic diversity is an invaluable asset to society and this Agree-ment proposes some measures to improve the status of Irish. The merit of these propo-sitions is assessed and set within the context of other Celtic communities in Britain. Inconclusion, the use of Irish at the initial meeting of the new Assembly in NorthernIreland is reviewed.

The origins of the Northern Irish conflict lie in developments that occurred asearly as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1800 an Act of Union deter-mined that the entire island of Ireland became officially united with GreatBritain. This statute remained in force until 1920 when the Government ofIreland Act formally established two separate entities. Six counties in the north ofthe island remained within the United Kingdom, whereas the remaining 26counties became the Irish Free State, later to become the Republic of Ireland.

There are many sources of tension in Northern Ireland. Some academics tendto focus on differences of ethnic origin, while others emphasise the roles ofhistory, religion or ideology in the generation of conflict and division. Given thecomplexity of the problem it is difficult to ascertain any precise details regardingthe community, though its religious compositionis accessible. Of the population,38.4% is Roman Catholic, 21.4% is Presbyterian and 17.7% belong to the Churchof Ireland. Methodists constitute 3.8%, 7.8% belong to other denominations,while a further 11% has not stated its religious affiliation or has none (Depart-ment of Health and Social Services, 1993b).

One cannot assume that all Catholics are staunch nationalists. Although 80%of them desire unity with the Republic of Ireland, four-fifths of these would liketo place some restrictions on such unity or at least to defer it to a later stage. More-over, it appears that a sixth of the Catholic population has no desire to becomepart of the Republic (Ruane & Todd, 1996: 66). The sense of identity among theProtestant population is equally complex. While two-thirds currently feelBritish, a further quarter considers itself as either Ulster or Northern Irish andsome 3% as Irish.

Equality and the question of power relations are usually central to any discus-sion regarding conflict in Northern Ireland and this also pertains to the languagequestion. My focus in this essay is on Irish, a language that is primarily, thoughnot solely, associated with Catholics or nationalists. However, some Catholics

0143-4632/99/06 0494-14 $10.00/0 © 1999 M. Nic CraithJOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 20, No. 6, 1999

494

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:02

29

Oct

ober

201

4

regard the promotion of Irish as unhelpful in the current context. By contrast, asmall number of Protestants enthusiastically support the language (McCoy,1997).

In August 1988 the British Government published a preliminary report on asurvey of the Irish language in Northern Ireland (Sweeney, 1988). As this was thefirst time that the Government had compiled statistical information regardingIrish speakers it was heralded as significant progress. It indicated that the Stateincreasingly conceived of the language as a relevant aspect of life in the Province.Three years later a question on Irish was included in the census form and thereturns supplied new information on the extent of the linguistic community(Mac Póilin, 1996; Nic Craith & Shuttleworth, 1996)

The Irish Language CommunityThe census 1991 queried the ability of individuals to speak, read and/or write

Irish. Those unfamiliar with the language were also asked to respond. Accordingto the published reports, as indicated in Table 1, a significant minority had someunderstanding of Irish. Apparently 9.35% of the male and 9.64% of the femalepopulation were familiar with it and both genders could speak, read and write itin virtually equal proportions.

One of the more interesting findings of the census was that the ‘typical’speaker of Irish was well educated. Over 20% of the most highly proficient sectorwas familiar with the language. A similar proportion of the student populationand almost 17% of those in professional employment knew Irish. High levels ofeducation also pertain to Irish speakers in the Republic of Ireland and may indi-cate that many have acquired their understanding of the language in the class-room rather than in the home.

The census also contained a table linking religious affiliation with linguisticskills. Though the query on Irish was obligatory, it was not essential to provide aresponse to the religious question. According to the results almost 22% of theRoman Catholic population were speakers of Irish. This was an unsurprisingfigure as the language has traditionally been associated with that particular

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 495

Table 1 Knowledge of Irish in Northern Ireland (Department of Health and SocialServices, 1993a)

Skills All ages 3+Total population 1,502,385Can speak Irish 45,338Can read Irish 5,887Can write Irish 1,340Can read and speak Irish 6,593Can read and write Irish 2,802Can speak and write Irish 1,031Can speak, read and write Irish 79,012Do not know Irish 1,320,657Not stated 39,725

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:02

29

Oct

ober

201

4

denomination. However a further 5500 Irish speakers identified themselves asbelonging to a different denomination and almost 10,000 Irish speakers did notdeclare any religious affiliation.

These results may have impressed those anxious to portray the magnitude ofthe Irish-speaking minority. Others may doubt the credibility of these figuresand ask whether they constitute a true reflection of reality. As with any censusquestion concerning language, there was no objective assessment of the accuracyof claims regarding linguistic skills and nothing prevented individuals with afew token words of Irish from classifying themselves as being competent in thelanguage.

The accuracy of self-assessment in census forms is a question that is frequentlyraised and many sociologists query whether any person is sufficiently aware ofhis or her own language usage to report it accurately. When conducting a studyof the 1881 census in Ireland, Fitzgerald (1984) suggested that there is consider-able variationin the individual perception of the competency required to justify acapacity to speak a language. Unfortunately this dilemma is not resolved by asimplification of the inquiry on a census form. Even if questions were restrictedto asking merely which languages were spoken, it would still be open to a degreeof ambiguity (Baetens Beardsmore, 1982).

Though 9.4% classified themselves as Irish speakers in the Northern Irelandcensus, it cannot be assumed that all of them were competent in the language.The returns merely indicate that these respondents wished to portray themselvesas Irish speakers. However it is also possible that some with a little knowledge ofthe language may have regarded that as insufficient to justify claiming a compe-tency of Irish and may have returned themselves as being unable to speak it.

This raises the question of the extent to which conscious or unconscious atti-tudes towards a language of investigation interfere with the legitimacy ofself-ascription. It is now recognised that when a language query was initiallyinserted into the census form in Ireland in 1851, many people chose to concealtheir fluency in the language (Nic Craith, 1993). Apart from the fact that Irish wasassociated with ignorance and poverty, it was commonly suspected that theBritish government had an ulterior motive in seeking information regardinglinguistic skills. As a consequence many opted to imply that they were monolin-gual English speakers and those census results can only serve as minimal indica-tors of the extent of Irish-speaking in the country.

Fishman has examined the general problem at length and has concluded thatresults of language censuses are valid when respondents wish to provide accu-rate replies to sufficiently clear questions (Fishman & Terry, 1971). In the case ofNorthern Ireland it is possible that an excessively zealous welcome for the ques-tion may have exaggerated the figures. When the new Northern Irish State wasestablished some seventy years previously, the query regarding knowledge ofIrish had been removed from the census form – an action that could possibly beconstrued as a withdrawal of recognition from the linguistic minority.According to the previous census (1901) the language still survived among fiveper cent or more of the total population in eight districts and Irish speakersconstituted over a third of the community in three of these regions (Nic Craith,1999).

496 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

A vigorous campaign had led to the re-introduction of the language questionin 1991 and it is doubtful if any opportunity to highlight the significance and sizeof the Irish language community was missed. However even if the figures cannotbe regarded as an absolute indicator of ability in Irish it can be assumed that theyillustrate a very positive attitude towards the language. Regardless of theiractual competency a substantial proportion wished to be classified as Irishspeakers. Presumably this figure would also be counter-balanced by those whorefrained from admitting their linguistic skills in Irish for political, social orpersonal reasons.

The question on the census form was problematic. It was based on the queryon Scots-Gaelic in Scottish census forms but similar questions do not alwaysserve different language groups equally well. The acquisition of linguistic skillsvaries in different regions. Perhaps one community has acquired the language ina formal educational context while another may be composed largely of nativespeakers. One tongue may be confined to an older generation and another maybe commonly spoken among children. Some languages are associated with sepa-ratist movements and others may be viewed as supportive.

A major flaw in the Northern Ireland census was that Irish speakers were notasked to indicate their native language. It was possibly assumed that allbilinguals had acquired Irish as a second language as – in contrast with speakersof other Celtic languages in the United Kingdom – the Irish-language commu-nity in Northern Ireland is largely revivalist in nature. It appears that the last ofthe native speakers died in the late 50s and early 60s (Hindley, 1990). Howeverseveral families in West Belfast speak Irish in the home and it is the first languageof the younger generation in some instances. Furthermore some speakers haveconnections with the Donegal Gaeltacht – a traditional northern Irish-speakingregion in the Republic of Ireland (Maguire, 1991). It should also be pointed outthat though the community in Northern Ireland is reviving Irish the languageitself has not died, but has survived in an unbroken tradition in several regions inthe Republic of Ireland. For this reason the regenesis of Irish in Northern Irelandcannot be compared with that of other previously dead languages, such asHebrew.

The fact that the community is primarily revivalist in nature does not implythat these people are inferior speakers of the language – merely that they aredifferent. However, it does raise the question of whether such people are entitledto any rights with regard to the use of the language. After all, it can be counteredthat this community really speaks English as its native tongue and Irish as asecondary mode of communication. This view suggests that there is no realnecessity to indulge in a process of accommodation that might prove costly andtime-consuming. Surely proponents of Irish can speak whatever language theywish in private but communicate solely in English in the public sector. Such anargument is based on a rather basic understanding of the concept of mothertongue.

Though UNESCO defines a mother tongue as the language of one’s earlychildhood (see Williams, 1996) it is increasingly being recognised that theconcept may have broader implications. A mother tongue possibly refers to thelanguage one knows best or uses most frequently. Alternatively it may pertain tothe language one identifies, or is identified, with. Balibar (1991: 91) has suggested

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 497D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

that ‘one’s “mother” tongue is not necessarily the language of one’s “real”mother. The language community is a community in the present, which producesthe feeling that it has always existed’. A former loyalist prisoner describes hisidentification with Irish in the following manner:

Now it was strange for loyalists at that time to hear the Gaelic languageactually being spoken, but after a while it became just a feature of camp life.It had an even stranger effect on me, because I was listening to a languagethat I couldn’t understand, that I had never heard before, but it was not aforeign language. It was my own native tongue. (Smith, 1994: 17)

Depending on the criterion used one may have several mother tongues at thesame time and these may alter during a person’s lifetime (Skutnabb-Kangas &Bucak, 1995). In the case of Irish speakers in Northern Ireland the language isregarded by many as their native rather than cradle tongue. Irish describes andinterprets their worldview. They are re-establishing the language of their forefa-thers and possessing what is thought to be native in a process that has beendescribed in other circumstances as ‘re-nativization’ (Demirdirek, 1998). Implicitin an acceptance of this interpretation of ‘mother’ tongue is the necessity for someform of formal recognition of the language.

However, it could be countered that this interpretation is motivated primarilyby separatist aspirations, as Irish has commonly been associated in the past withmoves towards independence. The link between nationalism and language hasbeen explored in a variety of contexts (e.g. Williams, 1994) and lesser-usedlanguages are often perceived as threatening and generating instability. A seriesof events had resulted in the close association of Irish with separatism.

Conradh na Gaeilge (the Gaelic League), an organisation designed to promotethe language, declared in 1915 that independence from Britain was at least asimportant as the revival of Irish. Many of the heroes who participated in the sepa-ratist uprising in Dublin in 1916 were ardent supporters of the language and Irishwas declared both a national and official language of the newly foundedRepublic of Ireland. The use of Irish by prisoners such as Bobby Sands ensuredthat it attained a political significance in Northern Ireland and led to theGaelicising of the republican movement particularly in the 1980s. Furthermorethe lack of access to Irish in state schools prevented the wider community fromacquiring it thereby reinforcing its exclusive use by Catholics and nationalists.

The director of the ULTACH Trust (Irish language organisation in Belfast) hasaddressed the question of the political motivation of various members of thislanguage community. He acknowledges that the ideological stance and sepa-ratist aspirations of some Irish speakers are perfectly justifiable. However heargues that as the cultural and political commitments of many of them are insep-arable, it has often been automatically assumed that all speakers of the languagewere republican. Unionism and Irish were perceived as incompatible. In acritique of the movement he suggested that

this unconscious ethnocentricity, rooted in an unresolved conflict betweenprinciples which claim to be non-political, and assumptions which areessentially political in their implications, is deeply ingrained in the Irishlanguage movement. (ULTACH Trust, 1991: 9)

498 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

He regretted that the exclusion of the Protestant community was often delib-erate and, in a reference to an earlier statement by a member of Sinn Féin, henoted that the language was frequently perceived as a ‘weapon in the nationalistarmoury’. The ULTACH Trust aims to disassociatethe language from nationalistaspirations and proposes that the efficiency of this ‘weaponry’ will diminish, asthe language becomes acceptable to the unionist community. However thede-politicisation of Irish is a two-way process; nationalists should abstain fromdeliberating associating Irish with separatism and unionists should also refrainfrom imbuing the language with political overtones:

In a strange mirror-image of this cast of mind, many unionists, following aprogramme to build Britishness by rejecting everything Irish, are extremelyhostile to the language, for motives which are themselves essentially polit-ical. (ULTACH Trust, 1991: 10)

As in the Basque country, the indigenous language had operated as a means ofexcluding ‘foreigners’ in Northern Ireland. It had created a frontier that gener-ated solidarity among those that spoke it and had divided members of thenationalist community from the unionist. The ULTACH Trust, however,conceives of Irish as a tool of integration rather than segregation. In Catalonia, forexample, newcomers are encouraged to learn the language and are quicklyassimilated (Conversi, 1997). The alleviation of this inclusion/exclusiondichotomy will not be achieved by the de-politicisation, as much as by themulti-politicisation, of Irish and necessitates actions rendering it acceptable to allpolitical traditions (ULTACH Trust, 1994). As part of this process the organisa-tion has embarked on a campaign to raise awareness of the Protestant contribu-tion to the survival of Irish in Ulster, particularly in the nineteenth century (e.g.Mac Póilin, 1990a, b, c, d).

The Good Friday AgreementOn 10 April 1998, the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland arrived

at a form of compromise. The talks conducted over two years under the chair-manship of Senator George Mitchell, included representatives of both unionistand nationalist communities. Several participants had formerly endorsedviolence as method of achieving their goals. Some parties, such as the DemocraticUnionist Party, refused to partake in this ‘peace process’. The documentproduced as a result of the talks is now known as the Good Friday Agreement. Atthe time of writing a substantialmajorityof the electorate has endorsed the agree-ment and a new Assembly has been set up in Belfast.

This Agreement proposed changes in a range of sectors including the culturalarena. With regard to linguistic diversity in Northern Ireland it affirmed that

all participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding andtolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland,the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethniccommunities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island ofIreland. (Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland and Government of Ireland, 1998: 22)

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 499D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

This communication endorses the value of linguistic diversity – a statementthat represents progress from the perspective of those seeking to enhance thestatus of Irish in the community. The fact that Irish is placed on a par withUlster-Scots may surprise some unfamiliar with linguistic diversity in NorthernIreland or those who react with incredulity to the suggestion that it constitutes aunique and distinct language.

At an international level, the European Bureau of Lesser-Used Languages,with offices in Brussels and Dublin, has conferred the status of a distinctlanguage on the Scots tongue in Scotland and its UK Committee has formallyrecognised Ulster-Scots as the Scots language in Ulster. This endows an officialinternational recognition of the status of language on Ulster-Scots. Under thesecircumstances it is clearly appropriate that both Irish and Ulster-Scots wereaddressed in the text of the Good Friday Agreement. It is somewhat unfortunatethat there was no specific allusion to languages of other minorities, such as thoseof the Chinese community.

Furthermore, there was no reference to Welsh, Scots-Gaelic or Cornish in theGood Friday Agreement. Though the language was placed on a par withUlster-Scots, no comparison was made between Irish and other Celtic languagesof the United Kingdom. Many nationalist politicians had sought parity of esteembetween Irish and these related languages and had particularly requested that itbe accorded a similar status to Welsh. (This imbalance is exemplified in BT publicpayphones in Northern Ireland where a caller is offered a service in Welsh butnot in Irish!)

The lack of reference to other Celtic languages may imply that the BritishGovernment wishes to develop an Ulster solution to an Ulster problem. Perhapsit was felt that such a comparison would offend some Irish speakers, who mightperceive it as an attempted ‘redefinition’ of the language as an element of BritishCeltic culture. Possibly the omission indicates unwillingness among unionistpoliticians to accept Irish as a recognised Celtic language of the United Kingdom.Indeed, as has already been argued, the Irish language in Northern Irelanddiffers from some other languages in the United Kingdom in that it is largelyrevivalist in nature. Distinction does not denote inferiority and perhaps speakersof Celtic languages would welcome greater cooperation between their commu-nities. Is it possible that this is a matter to be dealt with by the new Council of theIsles when this organisation is eventually established?

Even though the Agreement proposed ‘respect, understanding and tolerance’for Irish it did not accord it any legal status. Many organisations are unhappywith its current standing and are increasingly adopting a discourse of justice andcivil rights as a means of advancing its position (O’Reilly, 1997). Gaelchearta, abody that seeks full rights for Irish speakers, demands full state support for thelanguage. It requests the recognition of Irish as an official working language ofthe province and asks that the language community receives equality of treat-ment in all acts of parliament thereby ensuring that Irish is placed on a par withEnglish. Equality (a Belfast organisation) proposes the acknowledgement of Irishas the second official language of the state.

The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages suggests that an improve-ment in status is necessary as many, even those unfamiliar with Irish, value it astheir native tongue (in a political rather than a literal sense). Sometimes the

500 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

marginalisation of the language has been perceived as an injustice to the entirenationalist community regardless of their actual linguistic competence.Speaking Irish is considered a civil right enshrining the freedom of expression forone’s national and ethnic identity. A lack of recognition for the language mightimply a restriction on the cultural rights of an ever-increasing minority. Respectand tolerance are admirable but unquantifiable qualities offering few practicalguarantees for the language.

An opposing perspective might suggest that the Agreement was correct in notaccording a legal status to Irish. Firstly, it can be countered that as English is thefirst language acquired by the majority of Irish speakers they already receiveequality of treatment with the rest of the community who have no bilinguallinguistic rights. Of course, the precise proportion of those raised with Irish as afirst language has not been established and it is unfortunate that the census formdoes not investigate this matter. Such an argument against the provision of legalstatus to Irish ignores the political concept of a native tongue and devalues thesymbolism of Irish as an expression of identity. It promotes a mono-culturalviewpoint and disregards the concept of linguistic diversity (valued in the GoodFriday Agreement). Furthermore, it belittles a significant element of Ulster’sheritage, as Irish was the language spoken throughout the Province fornumerous centuries.

A more persuasive argument against awarding a legal status to Irish is thatother ethnically diverse communities, such as the Chinese, receive no formalrecognition for their languages. Why confer a legal status on Irish and deny it toothers? Perhaps this assessment ignores the variation in size between the twocommunities. According to the 1991 Census 142,003 people know some Irish.Though certain doubts can be raised regarding the accuracy of this figure it is stillconsiderably higher than that of the Chinese minority. Estimates of the extent ofthat community are disputed but studies by Irwin and Dunn (1997) suggest thenumbers are as high as 7000, while the Chinese Welfare Associationbelieves it tobe closer to 8000 (see Watson & McKnight, 1998). However, there is one vitaldifference between the two communities. Irish speakers are generally competentin English whereas many Chinese have great difficulty with the language. Surelythey are in an even greater need of formal bilingual opportunities?

Perhaps several languages in Northern Ireland could be accorded equality ofstatus with English in selected districts such as west Belfast or in the environs ofthe Gaelscoileanna (Irish-medium schools). A territoriality principle would recog-nise the dominance of languages other than English in particular locations andguarantee the claims of specific communities to use them. This principle is oper-ated successfully in Spain where the constitution enshrines Castilian as the offi-cial language of the state and all citizens are required to have knowledge of it.Nevertheless the law also guarantees the co-official status of other languagessuch as Catalan or Galician in territories where those languages are spoken by asubstantial proportion (Mar-Molinero, 1994). Such a system has benefits andinequalities. In the case of Northern Ireland it would ensure that there would beno impingement on the use of English and speakers of Irish or other languageswould have bilingual rights in particular territories. Excessive reliance on thisterritorial model can result in linguistic apartheid and the creation of linguisticreservations (Kockel, 1993).

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 501D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conradh na Gaeilge, (the Gaelic League) recommends that the position of Irishin Northern Ireland should resemble that of the Republic where the language hasofficial and national status. That would guarantee the language’s presence oncoins and at ceremonial occasions but Irish would not necessarily penetrate statestructures (Northover & Donnelly, 1996). It is improbable that the new Assemblywould consider Irish a ‘national’ language as such a step would have seriousimplications from unionist perspectives. Nationality arouses powerful emotionsin Northern Ireland and it is highly questionable whether those with a resolutesense of Britishness would ever accept Irish as a ‘national’ symbol.

Furthermore it could be argued that the attribution of a national status to Irishin the Republic has not necessarily contributed to any revitalisation of thelanguage (Fishman, 1991). Edwards (1985) maintains that many other significantaspects of social life, such as education, religion and politics, contributed to thedecline of the language. For example, its official national standing did notdiscourage the Irish Government from advising against a full working status forIrish upon Ireland’s entry to the EEC. In fact, the European Community wasobliged to devise a special category to accommodate the Irish Government’srequest (Ó Murchú, 1992; Nic Craith, 1994). Many attempts are now being madeto reverse this position. Moreover, despite its special position, the Irish Govern-ment has not given any consideration until recently to the implementation of alanguage act.

Besides, the Irish Government has consistently refused to ratify the EuropeanCharter for Regional or Minority languages – thereby failing to accord Irish anyof the privileges designed to protect lesser-used languages. Of course, it justifiesthis position on the basis that Irish is a national, rather than a regional, language.Proponents of the Charter, however, would counter that its wording was specifi-cally designed to include nationalor official languages not spoken throughout anentire country. Furthermore, as the British Government has recently declared itsintention of signing the Charter, thereby enhancing the rights of Irish speakers inNorthern Ireland, it could reasonably be argued that those in the Republic couldexpect a similar protection.

Apart from its proposed ratification of the Charter, the British Governmenthas made other specific offers in relation to Irish. According to the text of theGood Friday Agreement (pp. 22ff.) it will:

· take resolute action to promote the language;· facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in

public and private life where there is appropriate demand; [and]· seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or

work against the maintenance or development of the language.These statements represent clear progress in the position of Irish in the

community and indicate that it will gain a greater presence in the public sector.Both the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Sinn Féin have calledfor the institutionalisation of the language within new domains. They have, forexample, sought a legal entitlement for individuals to deal with all levels ofgovernment in Irish. Sinn Féin requested the appointment of an ombudsman toprocess the complaints of Irish speakers. Gaelchearta proposed a timetable of fiveyears to ensure the full legal recognition of Irish by every public body, service

502 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and agency. The Good Friday Agreement addresses the issue of Irish in thepublic sector and offers (p. 23) to

make provision for liaising with the Irish language community, repre-senting their views to public authorities and investigating complaints.

Of course, the status of Irish in the justice system is of particular concern tonationalist parties as unlike Welsh, Irish is not currently recognised in court. Attheir 16th Annual Conference, the SDLP noted that the Royal Ulster Constabu-lary regularly translates Irish names into English on legal documents. Tomásbecomes Thomas and Pádraig is registered as Patrick. This practice is in accor-dance with the Administration of Justice (Language) Act of 1737 and has beencustomary in other disputed language regions. From 1937 to the middle of the1950s the Spanish Government translated all Basque names on official docu-ments. After the First World War an attempt was made to re-christen German-speaking families in South Tyrol with Italian names. All nationalist parties inNorthern Ireland have requested the cessation of the practice of translation. Intheir submission to the multi-party talks on 10 November 1997, Sinn Féinrequested that

the British government should promptly introduce all necessary legislationto afford the Irish language equal status before the courts with the Englishlanguage. (Sinn Féin, 1997)

The Good Friday Agreement did not refer specifically to this issue.Greater success has been recorded in other sectors. The demand for

Irish-medium education since the late 1970s has been unprecedented. Inacknowledgement of this interest the Government has stated in the text of theGood Friday Agreement (p. 23) that it will

place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage andfacilitate Irish medium education in line with the current provision for inte-grated education.

Any extension of Irish medium-education will inherently generate furtherventures. For example, an expanded range of textbooks and educationalpublishing services, including computer software, will be required and it willprove necessary to train specialised teachers. An enhanced interest in bilin-gualism and language development will promote further research in languageacquisition. Even greater demands will arise with the emergence of bilingualschool-leavers into the workforce seeking opportunities to consolidate theirknowledge of Irish. Though they may gain employment as teachers it is doubtfulas yet whether very many bilinguals in Irish will be required by the NorthernIrish television sector.

Before the multi-party agreement Sinn Féin sought the establishment of anindependent commission to investigate the ethos of the two broadcasting bodies,the BBC (NI) and UTV. The party questioned the balance of representationbetween nationalist and unionist perspectives on these channels. Though thisparticular request was not addressed, other significant concessions were made.In the text of the Agreement (p. 23), the British Government undertook to:

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 503D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

· explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in cooperationwith the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more wide-spread availability of Teilifís na Gaeilge [Irish television in the Republic] inNorthern Ireland; [and to]

· seek more effective ways to encourage and provide financial support forIrish language film and television production in Northern Ireland.

Such a commitment will possibly require the provision of substantial fundingfor individual projects. This could infuriate those opposed to the promotion ofIrish who might suggest that as the Government has hardly provided sufficientfinance for English-language film production, it might be overly optimistic toexpect financial assistance for Irish language material. However, the Irishlanguage television service is already in operation in the Republic and perhapsthe cost of its extension to Northern Ireland would not be overly excessive. More-over, the production of various Irish-language programmes by organisationssuch as BBC (NI) could hardly be regarded as extreme, yet that organisation hasindicated that it will not broadcastany Irish language material in the current year1999. UTV has also affirmed that it currently has little interest in transmittingmaterial in that language (Mac Cába, 1999).

ConclusionAn accommodation of various languages and cultures requires mutual

respect and an awareness of differing perspectives on issues such as privileges,rights and the concept of justice (Williams, 1998). From the viewpoint of the Irishlanguage community it can hardly be argued that circumstances in NorthernIreland are completely satisfactory. Overall, however, it is clear that significantprogress has been made and the Good Friday Agreement provides a further affir-mation of cultural diversity in the province. The text (p. 23) notes that

all participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols andemblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the newinstitutions to ensure that such symbols are used in a manner whichpromotes mutual respect rather than division.

A significant demonstration of a commitment to pluralism was demonstratedby the use of Irish and Ulster-Scots at the first meeting of the Northern IrelandAssembly in June 1998.This institution permits those languages with the provisothat a translation is furnished. Members of Sinn Féin availed of several opportu-nities to speak in Irish and voted accordingly. Some enthusiasts in the Republicof Ireland reacted angrily to these utterances, advising that individuals deter-mined to speak Irish in the Assembly acquire a fluency in the language! Theywere also unhappy with the exasperation experienced by unionist participantsduring the Irish remarks.

Perhaps it could be proposed that as all participants clearly understandEnglish and are probably more fluent in that language it should suffice as thesingle means of communication in the Assembly. In this context language oper-ates solely on a functional basis and its relevance for identity is ignored. Further-more, such a proposal could generate a perception of the Assembly as anexclusive, rather than an inclusive, establishment. Though the symbolic poten-

504 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

tial of linguistic diversity within this institution is enormous it is also clear thatparticipants should not be forced to listen to languages they do not wish to hear,if an alternative procedure can be provided. Simultaneous translation facilitieswould overcome this current difficulty and ensure that all politicians communi-cate in their preferred language. Furthermore, it would free speakers of Irishfrom the cumbersome process of furnishing subsequent English translations oftheir remarks.

The expression of anxieties regarding symbols of culture in Northern Irelandmay provide evidence of a gradual adjustment to cultural difference. A processof accommodationis only gradually achieved and the progressive official recog-nition of the language has already resulted in an enhanced public awareness ofthe significance of diversity. As society in the Province becomes familiar withdistinctive emblems, the tensions aroused by the use of Irish may abate. Alterna-tively, such apprehensions may provoke demands for its exclusion from publiclife. Changes have already been implemented at a political level.

The future of Irish in Ulster lies with the people, rather than the politicians, ofthe Province and a variety of factors will determine the relevance of the languagein public life. These include the development of an infrastructure that can accom-modate multilingualism, the de-politicisation, or indeed multi-politicisation, ofIrish and the extension of its use throughout the community at large. Some mightsuggest that such ambitions are enormous and, perhaps, impossible to achieve.Enthusiasts of the language strongly disagree and may yet prove the pessimistsincorrect.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr M. Nic Craith, Institute of Irish

Studies, University of Liverpool, 1 Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK(m.g.nic-craith@liverpool.ac.uk).

ReferencesBaetens Beardsmore, H. (1982) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.Balibar, E. (1991) Racism and nationalism. In E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (eds) Race,

Nation, Class – Ambiguous Identities (pp. 86–106). London: Verso.Conversi, D. (1997) The Basques, the Catalans and Spain: Alternative Routes to Nationalist

Mobilisation. London: Hurst and Co.Demirdirek, H, (1998) Re-claiming nationhood through re-nativization of language: The

Gagauz in Muldova. Paper presented at conference of the European Association ofAnthropologists, University of Frankfurt, 4–7 September.

Department of Health and Social Services (1993a) The Northern Ireland Census 1991: IrishLanguage Report. Belfast: HMSO.

Department of Health and Social Services (1993b) The Northern Ireland Census 1991:Religion Report. Belfast: HMSO.

Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Fishman, J. and Terry, C. (1971) The contrastive validity of census data on bilingualism in

a Puerto Rican neighbourhood. In J. Fishman, R. Cooper, M. Roxana et al. (eds)Bilingualism in the Barrio (pp. 177–97). Bloomington: Indiana University.

Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations ofAssistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 505D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Fitzgerald, G. (1984) Estimates for baronies of minimum level of Irish-speaking amongstsuccessive decennial cohorts: 1771–1781 to 1861–1871. Proceedings of the Royal IrishAcademy 84 (3), 117–55.

Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland andGovernment of Ireland (1998) Agreement Reached in the Multi-Party Negotiations.

Hindley, R. (1990)The Death of the IrishLanguage: A QualifiedObituary. London: Routledge.Irwin, G. and Dunn, S. (1997)Ethnic Minorities in NorthernIreland. Coleraine: Centre for the

Study of Conflict, University of Ulster.Kockel, U. (1993) The Gentle Subversion: Informal Economy and Regional Development in the

West of Ireland. Bremen: European Society for Irish Studies.Mac Cába, A. (1999) BBC ‘maslach’ don chultúr Gaelach. Foinse, 24 January, 8.Mac Póilin, A. (1990a) From the token Teague to the patronised Prod. Fortnight 282, 29.Mac Póilin, A. (1990b) Rescuing the Protestant Gaeilgeoirí. Fortnight 286, 27–8.Mac Póilin, A. (1990c) The most ‘expressive and polished’ language. Fortnight 287, 29.Mac Póilin, A. (1990d) Embers of cultural liberalism faded. Fortnight 288, 31.Mac Póilin, A. (1996) Aspects of the Irish language movement in Northern Ireland. In M.

Nic Craith (ed.) Watching One’s Tongue: Aspects of Romance and Celtic Languages (pp.137–62). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Maguire, G. (1991)Our Own Language: An Irish Initiative. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Mar-Molinero, C. (1994) Linguistic nationalism and minority language groups in the

‘new’ Europe. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15 (4), 319–28.McCoy, G. (1997) Protestant learners of Irish in Northern Ireland. In A. Mac Póilin (ed.)

The Irish Language in Northern Ireland (pp. 131–69). Belfast: ULTACH Trust.Nic Craith, M. (1993) Malartú Teanga: an Ghaeilge i gCorcaigh sa Naoú hAois Déag. Bremen:

Leabharlann Eorpach Léann na hÉireann.Nic Craith, M. (1994) The Irish language in a comparative context. Oideas 42, 52–67.Nic Craith, M. (1999) Language and the creation of boundaries: The Irish case. In M.

Anderson and E. Bort (eds) The Irish Border: History, Politics, Culture (pp. 175–200).Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Nic Craith, M. and Shuttleworth I. (1996) Irish in Northern Ireland: The 1991 census. In M.Nic Craith (ed.) Watching One’s Tongue: Aspects of Romance and Celtic Languages (pp.163–75). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Northover M. and Donnelly, S. (1996)A future for English/Irish bilingualism in NorthernIreland? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17 (1), 33–48.

Ó Murchú, M. (1992)The Irish language. In G. Price (ed.) The Celtic Connection (pp. 30–64).Buckinghamshire: Colin Smythe.

O’Reilly, C. (1997) Nationalists and the Irish language in Northern Ireland: Competingperspectives. In A. Mac Póilin (ed.) The Irish Language in Northern Ireland (pp. 95–130).Belfast: ULTACH Trust.

Ruane, J. and Todd, J. (1996)The Dynamics of Conflict in NorthernIreland:Power, Conflict andEmancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SDLP (n.d.) Irish language policy paper. Presented to the 16th Annual Conference.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Bucak, S (1995) Killing a mother tongue-how the Kurds are

deprived of linguistic human rights. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson and M.Rannut (eds) Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination (pp.347–70). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sinn Féin (1997) Submission to the Multi-Party Talks. Belfast: Sinn Féin.Smith, W. (1994) The Irish language and the Unionist tradition. In P. Mistéil (ed.) Irish

Language and the Unionist Tradition (pp. 17–23). Belfast: Ulster People’sCollege/ULTACH Trust.

Sweeney, K. (1988)The IrishLanguage in NorthernIreland1987,PreliminaryReportof a Surveyof Knowledge, Interest and Ability. Belfast: Policy Planning and Research Unit.

ULTACH Trust/Iontaobhas ULTACH (1991) Annual Report/Tuairisc Bhliantúil 1990–91.Belfast: ULTACH Trust.

ULTACH Trust/Iontaobhas ULTACH (1994) Second Report/an Dara Tuairisc 1991–93.Belfast: ULTACH Trust.

506 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Watson, A. and McKnight, E. (1998) Race and ethnicity in Northern Ireland: The Chinesecommunity. In P. Hainsworth (ed.) Divided Society: Ethnic Minorities and Racism inNorthern Ireland (pp. 127–52). London: Pluto Press.

Williams, C. (1994) Called Unto Liberty: On Language and Nationalism. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Williams, C. (1996) Ethnic identity and language issues in development. In D. Dwyer andD. Drakakis-Smith (eds) Ethnicity and Development: Geographical Perspectives (pp.45–85). Chichester: John Wiley.

Williams, C. (1998) Room to talk in a house of faith: On language and religion. In B.Graham (ed.) ModernEurope: Place, Culture and Identity (pp. 186–209).London: Arnold.

Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland 507D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

OV

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

vied

o] a

t 08:

02 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014