What is a native Irish speaker?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a native Irish speaker is, and this discussion is seen a lot in learner communities.

Many people presume that because one was raised in Ireland and learned Irish through the educational system, that makes them a native Irish speaker. This is not the case. Just because someone has those traits, it does not equate them automatically as native Irish speakers.

Similarly, Irish is a native language of Ireland, but that does not mean it is automatically the native language of every individual in Ireland.

Native Speakers – A Controversial Phrase?

Before we continue, there is, of course, controversy surrounding the term ‘native speaker’ to begin with. It’s worth noting that native/non-native is not a strict division but rather a spectrum. For example, there are people raised with multiple languages, people who had some native exposure but then moved and didn’t keep in contact with the original community.

There are also some linguists who reject the term entirely because it often favours the privileged speakers from former and current colonial centres and is used to further marginalise those without power (because they speak less prestigious varieties and thus are not “native” of the prestige variety).

The controversy over the term ‘native speaker’ goes a long way back (see Paikeday’s 1985 book, ‘The native speaker is dead!’). Much of the modern discourse on the topic seems to have its roots in Robert Phillipson’s 1992 book ‘Linguistic Imperialism’, in which he argues that western countries have used English as a tool of imperialism, and that English Language Teaching organisations were among the tools through which this ideology/worldview was spread. Phillipson used the term “native speaker fallacy” to criticise the notion that language native speakers make the best teachers and role models in their language.

The term ‘native speakerism’ was later coined by Adrian Holliday and again, following on from Phillipson, he criticised “an ideology that upholds the idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it.”

While much of the above discourse focused moreso on the idealisation of the native speaker in the teaching of English as a second language, there has also been a growing tendency, based in social constructionist thinking, to challenge the very idea of the native speaker as a category itself.

‘we posit a spectrum of language ideologies ranging from essentialism to social constructionism. By linguistic essentialism, we mean the idea of language as fixed and bounded, as a code rather than practice and as naturally given or taken for granted. This is contrasted with social constructionism which emphasises “the idea that society is actively and creatively produced by human beings” and that “the world [is] made or invented – rather than merely given or taken for granted”’ (O’Rourke, B;Walsh, J, 2014)

This postmodern discourse related to language has started to become increasingly strong in minority language sociolinguistics in recent years. For example, an international network of academics has coordinated to promote the concept of the ‘new speaker’ and challenge traditional minority language and revitalisation sociolinguistics.

The traditional sociolinguists tended to focus on the importance of native speakers and the language of traditional L1 speech communities and on investigating the mechanisms by which languages either are or aren’t maintained by their speech communities, above all else. Whereas new speaker sociolinguists, on the other hand, tend to focus on language as a choice in an individual’s construction of their own identity.

This strain of minority language sociolinguistics looks set to continue to grow in influence within universities, sociolinguist academic, Michael Hornsby has coordinated research training programmes for up and coming early-career researchers, with most of the classes/lectures run by fellow ‘new speakerists’.

Is this problematic?

What’s potentially problematic about this new direction for minority language sociolinguistics, is that it has turned what was originally, in discourse:

1. a challenge to the positions of the hegemonic former-colonial (and/or neocolonial, depending on the author) languages
2. an attempt to highlight how the privileged positions of native speakers of standard dialects of these languages were advantaged in comparison to non-native speakers who had to compete in the same linguistic marketplace (an advantage and central position in the world which was ‘won’ by these languages during their past periods of colonial expansion)

into an attack on the linguistic and cultural capital possessed by traditionally peripheralised speech communities of minoritised languages.

Take this quote, from Bernadette O’Rourke for example:

‘the new speaker label moves away from a deficit model (‘non’-native, ‘second’language, etc.) and from a commitment to‘ salvaging’ the language and ‘rescuing’ native speaker communities toward understanding the systems of meaning surrounding language varieties in different sociolinguistic settings. As such, the Action’s researchers have used the newspeaker concept to question the privileging of the native speaker, which has tended to be taken as the ultimate ‘owner’ of minority languages and the object of revitalisation movements where the focus was on ‘salvaging’ the native speaker.’

To question the ‘privileging of the native speaker’.

Let’s break this down. First think of it in the context of a native English speaker of a standard dialect of English. Yes, they’re privileged not only by speaking the dialect the standard to which all others are expected to aspire to, but also by the position of English as the global lingua franca and the language of the two main hegemonic world powers of the last two centuries – England in the age of Imperialism and the globalisation that followed, and the USA in the age of hyperglobalisation and global and international radio, television, internet media.

Now think of the same sentence but in the context of a native speaker of a minority language, a member of a historically marginalised speech community, which has struggled to survive in the face of pressure from a surrounding majority language. (Note also the use of words like ‘salvaging’ as an attempt to attach negative connotations to the work of revitalisation focused linguists in attempting to aid minoritised speech communities in the protection of their languages.)

‘New speakerist ideology’ itself made up by native speakers of majority languages, former colonial languages, who having learned a minority language, then either helped create or became enamoured with an ideology and movement which seems to be intent on erasing the linguistic and cultural capital of remaining native minority language speech communities.

But it’s not framed that way. Instead, it’s framed with nice-sounding academic language, where the concept of the native speaker was one which arose during the era of Romantic nationalism. This implied that the concept itself was always unnatural and that the linguistic capital which later became associated with being a native speaker was never theirs in the first place.

In the case of Irish of course this association has been brief, as for many long years the language was stigmatised, even after the cultural revolution and Irish independence – long into and even long after the era of Romantic nationalism.

One may even consider this as one of the strangest forms of neocolonialism to ever come from the linguistic spheres of the former colonial languages, the ultimate trojan horse if you will. Imagine: “We learn your language, we outnumber you! Now we’re saying that our speech is as authentic as yours. We own this language as much as you do. It is ours because we say it is”.

So is it a situation where native English speakers who learn minority languages are being ‘oppressed’ by native speaker ideologies? It’s hard to argue against when it’s dressed up using a socially acceptable, nice-sounding vocabulary.

Please note: Here we are speaking about a particular ideology. We are not talking about learners or L2 speakers. The problem with so-called ‘new speaker academics’ is that they often assume to speak for L2 speakers and learners when in fact they do not. The majority know nothing about them.

N.B.

We acknowledge that there are many non-native language speakers/learners who have fantastic standards of Irish. This isn’t to be scoffed at.

We also acknowledge that many learners/speakers are fluent but do not consider themselves native Irish speakers.

We acknowledge that fluency in a language also does not make one a native speaker of that language but that everyone should be welcome to learn Irish.

Finally we acknowledge that this is a complicated and divisive topic worthy of discussion.

For the sake of this particular post, we’re very much discussing the lack of understanding learners have between Irish speakers for whom the language is their primary language and part of their living, breathing communities, and those who learned it in school.

There is a clear distinction between someone raised in the language in a community where the language is actively spoken and it is the language of their thoughts and main means of communication, and a learner for whom it’s something learnt later during their life but not “lived through” for most of their life.

How people learn native languages usually follows this kind of pattern:

1. First Language Acquisition: Native speakers acquire the language naturally as it’s their mother tongue. 
2. Early Childhood: Language learning typically begins from the time a child is born or shortly after. 
3. Family and Environment: Native Irish speakers have a family background where Irish is the primary language, and they are raised in areas where Irish is commonly spoken i.e. the Gaeltachtaí. 
4. Fluency and Mastery: Native speakers usually possess a high level of fluency and mastery of the language, demonstrating an understanding of nuances and subtleties that are often more difficult for second-language learners to acquire. 

School Learners/Speakers

What you have been exposed to in school does not reflect the traditional or historical dialects of the province. The Irish taught in schools typically resembles a sort of modified version of Standard Irish (an Caighdeán Oifigiúil), altered by the teachers’ own backgrounds, experiences and sadly, often profound deficiencies. Not all teachers, of course, but there are an astonishingly large number of underqualfied Irish language teachers essentially passing on poor Irish to their students.

In summary

Non-native Irish language learners/speakers should be ok with not considering themselves native Irish speakers, it is simply a way of distinguishing one speaker from another.

Non-native Irish language learners/speakers should also be ok and proactive in supporting native Irish speaker causes, particularly when it comes to underfunding Gaeltacht regions.

As Senator Nicole Ryan notes: “It is more important than ever to talk about the real crisis facing our Gaeltacht communities. The number of daily Irish speakers is dropping and young people are being forced out, not because they want to leave, but because they can’t build or buy a home in their own community.”

“Instead of more red tape, we need real action, affordable housing, fair planning rules and the long promised Gaeltacht housing guidelines. If the government is serious about protecting the Irish language they need to start with the people who speak it,” she adds.

A native Irish speaker isn’t:

1. Automatically one, because they’re native to Ireland
2. Automatically one, because they studied Irish in school

A native Irish speaker is:

1. Someone raised in the language in a community where the language is actively spoken
2. Someone who has the language in their thoughts and main means of communication
3. Someone who has mastery of the language and is able to demonstrate the nuance when speaking / writing

This site focuses on learning Irish as a living language, used by its native speakers, in the remaining Gaeltacht communities for whom it is still (albeit suppressed and declining) the main language.

Sources

For more reading on the debate between new speakerists and everybody else in their field, see:

• Steve Hewitt. Neo-Speakers of Endangered Languages: Theorizing Failure to Learn the Language properly as Creative post-Vernacularity
• Christopher Lewin. Anti-prescriptivism, language revitalization and ‘new speakers’: fresh perspectives or plus ça change
• Christopher Lewin. New speakers and language ideology: some observations and suggestions
• Joan Pujolar. Position paper: The debates on “new speakers” and ” non-native ” speakers as symptoms of late modern anxieties over linguistic ownership.
  • Pujolar is a member of the New Speakers Network, which has received funding from COST that was referenced above. It is only fair that their side of this debate is also presented

Image by G Poulsen from Pixabay