Learning native languages should be compulsory in the U.K

[RainCloud]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/25/why-i-quit-gaelic-language-forefathers-vocabulary?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

I saw this article earlier and it made me sad that the number Scottish Gaelic speakers are declining. I think it should be compulsory for us all to learn Scottish Gaelic and Welsh at school, all over the U.K. I'm not saying that we should all be fluent but we should learn the basics. It might inspire more people to become fluent and stop the languages dying out.

It was the Blair government that decreed it no longer compulsory to offer a MFL at GCSE. Just saying, before anyone starts blaming it on the Tories/ Boris/ Brexit.

As for schoolchildren routinely learning anything like Mandarin or Japanese, how on earth is that ever going to happen, when far easier languages like French and Spanish are deemed ‘too hard’ for the average poor little dear?

I'm Scottish. I don't speak Gaelic and have never had an interest in doing so. People can take classes if it's something that interests them.

The education system is woefully underfunded and struggling. What would you cut in order to add all these languages in?

Is there really a benefit for someone in England learning Welsh and Gaelic?

Did you learn a language at school? I learned French and I would be lucky if I could say more than "my name is...." now. Was a colossal waste of time.

I agree with this.

There's a complicated history here, and I'm not sure this is an objective description.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, official surveyors and mapmakers in Scotland recorded the names of all locations and natural features in English only, including tiny settlements, uninhabited islands, small creeks, etc. If anyplace didn't have an English-language name the local name was anglicised. These were often nowhere close to the original and unpronounceable to many locals, who of course kept using the original names. When official, standardised road signs were erected in the 20th century, they were required to use the names from the ordnance maps, hence English only.

There are records of requests by individual councils to add Gaelic signage, but none were approved until in 1973 a local land owner on Skye negotiated the use of a small number of bilingual signs in exchange for agreeing to sell his property to allow a planned road to go through. His opponents tried to stop this by introducing a bill in the UK Parliament to formally restrict Gaelic language use by local councils, which did not pass. The success of the change on Skye inspired other local Gaelic advocates and activists and gave them a real-life example to demonstrate cost/benefit.

In 1996, a group of Highland councils launched a project focussed on installing bilingual road signs on trunk roads that pass through communities where Gaelic is spoken and which lead to west coast ferry ports. A policy to replace English with bilingual signs on these roads was agreed by the (then brand new, and Labour-led) Scottish Executive with Highland and Argyll and Bute Councils in late 2002. All sign replacement on the A87, A887, A830, A835, A828, A85, A82 and A83 was completed under this initiative, which cost an estimated £2 million in total and ran until 2010. This was a one-time, area-wide change to correct an identified problem, with plans for the new bilingual signs continuing to be maintained as they aged just as the English-only signs had been.

The changes to add Gaelic to road signage outside of Gaelic-speaking areas and to police cars and ambulances in Scotland result directly from the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 introduced by Peter Peacock, a Labour MSP for Highlands and Islands who at the time was Minister for Education in a Labour-led Scottish Executive under Jack McConnell. The Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to approve the bill.

The stated purpose of the Act was "securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education". The new Bòrd na Gàidhlig was responsible for advising the public authorities as descibed in the underlined section above, but the authorities themselves had leeway in their plans (some still have not produced them) and implementation has not been compulsory.

Following the example of the successful trunk road replacement initiative, and under the framework of the 2005 Act, councils and other public authorities wrote plans to add Gaelic to road and public transit signs being replaced anyway due to wear and tear, damage, construction projects, etc. It's difficult to determine the monetary cost outside of the original - and unrelated - £2 million because invoicing will include the full cost of sign replacement for an area or network or project and not separate out the number of signs with Gaelic added nor cost the number of letters used to add the Gaelic words.

The changes introduced for police cars, uniforms, and materials to include Gaelic in 2018 were part of a larger Police Scotland modernisation initiative with a commitment that changes are made only as old materials are due to be replaced. The changes to the Scottish Ambulance Service - who added Gaelic to their stationary in addition to replacing the English signage on one side of the cars with the same in Gaelic - were also rolled out as materials were due to be updated/replaced. Both the Scottish Ambulance Service and Police Scotland cited their need to be easily and consistently identifiable across Scotland (they obviously had no authority act UK-wide) in explaining why the changes were planned for the whole of Scotland rather than targeted to areas with larger numbers of Gaelic speakers.

In reponse to an FOI request in November 2021, Scottish Ambulance Service provided extensive detail on all the initiatives and costs related to Gaelic language inclusion since 2013. The highest annual figure was £393.

The Gaelic term for airport, port-adhair, is simply the Gaelic word "port" (same word as in English, from the Latin portus - French, Catalan, Estonian, Polish, and Irish also have the same word) with a descriptor appended: "adhair" is a Gaelic word for air.

Gaelic has (at least) three words for “computer”: rianadair, annalair, and coimpiutair. You could argue that the last is a cognate, but I'm not sure that contributes to the idea that Gaelic is a dead language; speakers of Russian (компьютер), Polish (komputer), Spanish (computadora), Maltese (kompjuter) and so on might take issue with that. As might the dinosaurs still speaking German, Romanian, Somali, Italian, Filipino, Dutch and Danish, who've just lifted "computer" as-is.

Whenever we've gone abroad I've applied myself to learning simple phrases as a matter of good manners. I used to study phrase books now it's all Google study. Pronunciation is more of a challenge rolling your tongue around some words. My DB lives in China taught students so needed to learn mandarin.

Friends lived in Spain then France their children went to school there. They were able to converse more quickly than their parents.

My DS worked in construction abroad had to learn Spanish Because the workers were Spanish or Portuguese

babdoc things that scottish == snp == bad. don't ruin that with facts

@Beithe and the parts of Scotland my family hail from are neither Fife nor Aberdeenshire.

I can trace my family back to the late 1600s. None of them were in Gaelic speaking areas.

That I should now learn Gaelic because they 'might' have done so in medieval times is madness.

Not unless the English have to learn Middle English and Anglo-Norman and Latin.

What @Beithe said ^(No, Gaelic was the dominant language in Scotland in 11th to 13th century Scotland. Scots replaces Gaelic in many areas but it took a long time.
That map is, I presume, recent census data. If you had a similar map from around 1900 it would look quite different.)^

I know my great grandad travelled with his work from Aberdeen to the Cairngorms from the 1880s on, and he needed to have some Gaelic once he got about 30 miles from home.

Also there are Gaelic schools all over Scotland these days- there are many benefits to having a bilingual education. Not least in that it helps with language acquisition in general. The main challenge is finding teachers who have Gaelic as their native tongue.

The lowlands never spoke Gaelic

The thing about first language interference is true of every language. Many MFL teachers teach their second (or even third/fourth!) language. IMO there's nothing wrong with fluent non-native speakers teaching a language at school level. I do recognise that that's probably less politically acceptable with BSL than with French/Spanish/etc though.

Sorry I rather sloppily put CODAs in Deaf. One of the lecturers at uni claimed he was Deaf although he was hearing. He was a CODA married to a Deaf woman and had a Deaf child.

There's always politics involved in which languages are learned, used and given higher status.

Agree with the poster who suggested BSL/Makaton

Makaton isn't a language, it uses BSL signs and English grammer.

The Irish language is compulsory in Ireland and I don't know many kids who didn't hate learning it or feel it was a waste of time. I didn't mind learning it, but I don't believe it should be an exam subject or compulsory.

If I ever wanted to move back to Ireland, DD would have to start learning it in school even though she never has before and would be behind by 4 years. That's something I would definitely not be happy about. She wouldn't be eligible for an exemption and would still have to do exams in the subject.

It is sad that languages like this are dying out, but I just don't think they will survive in modern society as nobody sees the value in learning them. Ever since I left school I haven't spoken (or heard spoken) a word of Irish so I've forgotten almost all of it.

@diamondpony80 if you went back after your DD was 10 you'd get an exemption. my son got one. I did have to battle a bit (he was younger than 10) but eventually I said look, exemption or no exemption, he's not able for this, he's not doing it, he will never get points from this subject so all the Dept of Ed will succeed in achieving here is to lower the self-esteem of a child who needs to feel validated at school, not invalidated first thing every morning. The school decide so got it in the end but thank goodness.

A linguistic expert on measures the Republic of Ireland has taken for decades to save Irish Gaelic:

"I really don’t know as I think the government is doing such a good job already with the fact that it’s a mandatory school subject and it’s on TV and radio."

“Most governments to some extent or another are trying to save languages, Wales is with Welsh, Scotland is trying to save Scots Gaelic, and Isle of Man is trying to save Manx, yet all of these languages are still going.”

Federico Espinosa, Lead Language Expert at Busuu.

The point has always been:

A) what explains continued language decline despite all the possibilities available to learn a language in the 21st Century?

We've far more opportunities NOW than at any stage in human history.

B) what makes anyone think legislation will stem language decline of minority languages?

Gaelic has been the official language of the Republic of Ireland for quite some time now. Official language of the European Union too.

In Scotland, Gaelic has enjoyed promotion and increased visibility. But NOT protection.

In Wales, protection and increased visibility has been afforded Welsh for quite some time too.

The Welsh language act provides literal legal protection in law which is NOT afforded Scottish Gaelic.

Yet all three are declining still. Add in Manx Gaelic which hasn't had a native speaker since 1974.

IIRC, these languages are all critically endangered and will disappear by the 22nd Century, according to UNESCO.

Legislation can be shown to NOT have protected these languages, so what would really change in Northern Ireland itself?

Beyond the symbolic which is really of a political nature unlike that of Manx Gaelic.

Top Ten Most Dominant Languages in the world:

English, Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, French, German and others comprises HALF the global population.

They're becoming more COMPLEX which requires MORE time to spend learning them. Opportunities to learn them INCREASE accordingly.

This, in turn, crowds out and lessens opportunities for languages such as Gaelic, Welsh, Picard, Breton, Cornish, Lombard and many more.

They're trapped within a vicious circle.

With all the above in consideration.....WHAT is your proposed SOLUTION?

Practical solutions is what I'm looking for and I'm NOT interested in vague rhetoric regarding protection, rights, preservation, etc, as these are buzzwords which does not create meaningful discussion.

Keep in mind that language is linked to power - political and economical. Its no surprise the most dominant languages roughly correlate to the most powerful countries in the world.

United Kingdom, United States of America, Germany, France, China, Spain, Portugal and the like in no particular order.

It's a no brainer as to why half the world's languages are predicted to die out by the 22nd century.

It has ALWAYS been this way for languages - evolve or die.

So, I do NOT agree with you that learning minority languages should be compulsory in the UK. A case can be made for French, German, Spanish and Portuguese, for example. But not minority languages in a practical sense.

A) what explains continued language decline despite all the possibilities available to learn a language in the 21st Century?

The foremost one is probably that the purpose of language is communication.

We visited Skye a few months ago. We learned quite a lot about the culture and history - the information was all available in English (often, not always, also in Gaelic). There were lots of European visitors who were also able to access the information in English.

It would be a tragedy if historic and minority languages were lost, so that source material could no longer be understood. But for the majority of people, it's the content rather than the medium which matters.

That people want a language to perform a very practical function is one of two explanations for my question A.

The other is globalisation which expands the reach of dominant languages whilst making them more complicated to use. This tandem means little to no time for minority languages.

Climate change is another threat to minority languages as people will move to areas which are less stressed. This means more reliance on dominant languages as above and speeds up the decline of minority languages.

Personally, I wouldn't see it as a tragedy as many languages have died out to be replaced by another. The Pictish language in Scotland died out under pressure from Gaelic which migrated from Ulster. You might say it's poetic justice that Gaelic is still declining, but it's really just another fact of life.

Evolve or die has always been the reality on Earth. Why would languages be treated any differently?

It could be suggested that fewer languages and difference as a visible marker could lead to fewer human conflict. A possibility though by no means certain.

Yet languages all come and go. Today's dominant languages are not going to live forever either. A day will come they're bound to disappear too.

It's life.

I can't find the infinitive 'houbare' in my Latin dictionary. What does it mean, please?

(Ah, semper in excreto sumus, sed profundum vareat.)

They clearly meant "You are" rather than "Houbare".

Latin is a dead language since it has no native speakers. Italians cannot understand Latin despite the fact Italian evolved from it as did other languages in Europe. It can only be understood by studying it.

That Latin proverbs and phrases survive in modern usage in very specific contexts does NOT mean its a living language.

It is not.

This is a contradictory statement - languages must be used in order to live. Once there are no more native speakers, a language is officially classed as a dead language.

There is a long history of the Gaelic language being weaponised as part of a broader terrorist offensive against the British in all senses.

That has led to the present situation today.

There's a long history of Irish Republicanism using Gaelic as another weapon in their arsenal against the British State, the English and Ulster's Unionists respectively.

Take Michael Collins below:

"We only succeeded after we had begun to get back our Irish ways; after we had made a serious effort to speak our own language; after we had striven again to govern ourselves. We can only keep out the enemy and all other enemies by completing that task. The biggest task will be the restoration of the Irish language."

And:

"Irish will scarcely be our language in this generation, not even perhaps in the next. But until we have it again on our tongues and in our minds we are not free, and we will produce no immortal literature."

Here, Gaelic is closely linked with the movement towards independence by this IRA leader.

Before him, the Gaelic League asserted, "The Irish language is a political weapon of the first importance against English encroachment." It's important to note that Douglas Hyde resigned from the Gaelic League as president because he realised it was no longer possible to separate the Gaelic language from politics, namely Republicanism. In effect, Republicanism had hijacked Gaelic for their own ends and so the language was no longer merely cultural.

Michael Collins, in favour of weaponising Gaelic, also joined the Gaelic League while living in London.

Within Northern Ireland itself, the link between Gaelic and the politics of Militant Irish Republicanism is seen once again in the figure of Bobby Sands during the Hunger Strikes era as outlined in "Nationalists and the Irish Language in Northern Ireland: Competing Perspectives' by Camille O'Reilly" -

"Irish was literally seen as a weapon in the arsenal available to fight the British. A well known statement demonstrates this position. A prominent member of Sinn Féin, who is also an Irish language activist, has been quoted as saying "Every word of Irish spoken is like another bullet being fired in the struggle for Irish freedom.""

SF/PIRAs own book "Learning Irish - a discussion and information booklet" asserted:

"Everyone was agreed that there was a definite link between the National Struggle and the Cultural Revival."

The book is a pro-SF/PIRA one.

In 1991, Dr Maurice Hayes, chairman of the Community Relations Council stated that "some manifestations of the Irish language are precisely employed in order to cause as much offence as possible to Unionists."

Again here we see the language as political weapon by Republicans:

"We also have to accept that having the language back will help bring an end to the foreign rule in Ireland. As the Irish influence rises, the foreign influence decreases."

Recall also Gerry Adams' "Trojan Horse of the entire Republican strategy" from 2012.

By now, it should be quite clear that the Gaelic language has been used as a convenient weapon by Republicanism via cultural and political means against the British.

And the slur against the Nationalist politician, Gerry Fitt, reminds us all that "the Brits" includes Catholic and Protestant alike who don't fall in with the Irish Nationalist and Republican viewpoint, so the above is unsurprisingly taken as another weapon against that section of the population.

Is it any wonder then that there is opposition to an Irish language act? Especially since around 4,000 Catholics use Gaelic on a regular basis as their home language in Northern Ireland. The numbers really isn't there for such an act.

Scotland doesn't protect Scottish Gaelic, but merely promotes it. Wales, on the other hand, promotes and protects Welsh.

Yet both are declining.

There is a much greater need for people in this country, and globally, to be much more scientifically aware, as demonstrated by the recent pandemic. There are people who have no idea how viruses spread, how vaccines are made, how vaccines work etc. Having a better education into sciences would be time better spent than learning languages that very few people use when alternatives are available.

I think the Irish experience has shown that the most effective means of protecting the languages is showing that they're relevant to life as we live it today.

This means radio and TV stations, internet presence, etc.

All of that sparks interest and conveys the idea that the language is alive and available.

Those saying it's useless have a very limited idea of what education is for. School should engender curiosity and provide the tools for a lifetime of learning. In the case of the Celtic languages, the grammar will provide the basis for learning all other European languages including Latin. They feature all the grammatical quirks you are ever going to encounter.