EUROMOSAIC NATIONAL GAELIC USE SURVEY 1994/5 WESTERN ISLES SAMPLE: FAMILY AND COMMUNITY 

The Euromosaic Survey

This was commissioned in 1994 by Commission for the European Communities and funded by Task Force Resources Humaines, Brussels . It comprised a comparative report on all the lesser-used languages of the European Union, and a detailed language use survey of eight of these in the first instance ( later increased ). The study was managed by an international team: Equip Euromosaic, and the surveys in Britain , Ireland and Brittany were organised by Research Centre Wales, Bangor . The overall report on Gaelic in Scotland ( MacKinnon 1994), and the organisation of the language use survey were both undertaken by the present writer. The language use survey was the first national language use survey undertaken for Gaelic, and at the time of writing remains the only one. There have been other national surveys of Gaelic: audience research not in public domain for BBC Broadcasting Research in 1995/6 (for which the present author supplied the methodology), two opinion surveys amongst the general population ( by the present author in 1981 and by MRUK in 2003), and surveys on the Gaelic arts and economy ( by Glasgow Caledonian University: Sproull & Ashcroft 1994, Sproull & Chalmers 1998, and Chalmers 2003 ). The Euromosaic study however remains the only detailed and dedicated language use survey as such to date which has been undertaken at a national level.

The survey questionnaire and methodology were common to all the language-group surveys. This potentially enabled comparative work to be undertaken – and there have been some publications on these lines (see below) with further shortly expected. There were some similarities in questionnaire with the Irish ten-yearly CLAR surveys and with the present author's previous surveys on Gaelic in the Western Isles, again potentially enabling comparative work to be undertaken. The present author acted as consultant to the Western Isles Language Plan (WILP) survey in 2002/5. Common elements in its questionnaire were designed to enable comparison of the Gaelic-speaking population over a ten-year period to be undertaken. This later Western Isles survey has recently been analysed en bloc but to date no separate analysis of Gaelic speakers as such has been attempted.

The Euromosaic survey of 1994/5 thus provides the most recent profile of Gaelic speakers in the last remaining stronghold of the language. The study also surveyed representative Gaelic-speaking samples from other areas of Scotland in proportion to their known Gaelic populations, which also enables comparisons to be undertaken. In the 1994/5 study the Western Isles sub-sample comprised 130 respondents (out of a national total of 322). A decade later the WILP study surveyed a total of 414 respondents in the Western Isles, of whom 61.5% ( or some 255 ) were Gaelic speakers. Although the research methodologies differed ( Euromosaic was a quota survey, and WILP was systematic ), it would clearly be useful to analyse the Gaelic speakers as such in 2004/5 and compare them with the earlier sample taken a decade earlier in 1994/5. This is likely to yield both more up-to-date information in a rapidly changing situation, and some comparative perspectives on the processes at work and their speed of operation.

Gaelic amongst respondents' children

The prospects for Gaelic language maintenance in the Western Isles hinges upon intergenerational transmission of the language in the family. Table 1 illustrates the results of the survey question on the extent to which respondents' children actually used Gaelic with one another. There are census data on the extent to which parents and children are able to speak Gaelic for 1991 and 2001 in the Western Isles (and other broad divisions of Scotland ). The purpose of these questions was to examine to what extent they actually spoke it.

In 1991 in the Western Isles in cases where both parents spoke Gaelic 80.7% of their children were returned as doing so. Where only one parent spoke Gaelic 24.1% of their children did so. For lone parents speaking Gaelic 67.7% of their children also spoke it.

In 2001 in the Western Isles in cases where both parents spoke Gaelic 76.5% of their children were returned as doing so. Where only one parent spoke Gaelic 36.9% of their children did so. For lone parents speaking Gaelic 50.9% of their children also spoke it.

Although there was some increase of Gaelic where only one parent spoke it ( perhaps one of the few measurable effects of Gaelic medium education ), the overall position has been one of rapid decline.

The Euromosaic survey attempted to investigate to what extent respondents' children actually used the language – and this intention was built into the WILP survey as well.

Euromosaic found that of the 66 Western Isles respondents with children, only 44 (or 66.7%) used the language at all – and only 20 ( 30.3%) used their Gaelic mostly or always, (See Tables 1, and 2.) The WILP survey observes that 8 out of 10 children of the whole sample mainly or always speak English to one another (WILP p. 19).

These results indicate the importance of the family in any strategy of language maintenance or recovery. Neglecting this basic issue and hoping that other measures will somehow turn the corner for Gaelic by the time of the next census in 2011 will ensure that current trends will continue to gather momentum.

The importance of Gaelic medium education – or better, a policy whereby all children gain effective command of both their community languages as a core feature of their educational experience – is emphasised by the increasing number of marriages and lone parent partnerships where only one parent speaks the language. This has been understood in Wales and policies have been put in place which have successfully addressed this issue.

Gaelic strategies for the family

To date all surveys have been essentially socio-community studies which have tried to measure language abilities, actual usage, language loyalty and attitudes. The latter characteristics have been essentially ‘broad-brush' because what is really needed here are motivational and psycholinguistic studies of what turns Gaelic speakers on to using their language and what turns them off.

Unless these reasons are revealed by appropriate research, any strategies for Gaelic in the family will be ‘hit-or-miss'. They will have very little prospect of success.

However, with the research which we do have to hand, are there any clues as to what factors may be associated with successful language transmission, and what sorts of parents actually pass on their language and provide a home ethos whereby their children actually use the language? The analysis presented here attempts to do this. Table 2 looks at various factors which may associate with these situations.

A Gaelic ambience may be expected to have the most effect. Hearing Gaelic all around may be the most effective stimulant to using it oneself. Whether such total immersion ambiences actually still exist even in the Western Isles may be questioned. The survey did attempt to assess the extent to which respondents spoke the language themselves over the past day both in the home and outwith it. The 1994/5 sample of Western Isles Gaelic speakers reported using Gaelic in about 66% of their daily lives, and for about 46% of their community affairs. (See Table 3). Respondents with children did use the language more than those without it: 75% and 49% respectively as compared with 56% and 43%. (See Table 2.) But Gaelic ambience was not very different for the children who always used English as compared with those who used Gaelic to whatever extent.. It must be emphasised however that a great deal of confidence can not be placed on results obtained from these tiny figures.

Nevertheless, levels of Gaelic usage reported in the community did seem to associate more strongly with the extent to which children used Gaelic amongst themselves.. Gaelic community usage levels were computed at 42% where children always used English and 51% where they used Gaelic mostly or always. These differences though suggestive are probably not very significant.

The occupational level of parents whose children used Gaelic ‘always' amongst themselves was interesting: averaging level 4. This ‘semi-skilled' occupational group comprises the traditional ‘crofting core' of the community – and it seems still to be stronger than the other groups in maintaining its Gaelic intergenerationally. This phenomenon had been noted in the present author's previous research studies in the Western Isles and elsewhere. (See MacKinnon 1994b.) The impression however is strong that this factor is very much weakening.

The higher Gaelic usage levels amongst children did seem to associate with higher levels of claimed parental support for the language, and higher levels of Gaelic language loyalty as measured by this study. These were explored by a series of questions and measurement scales computed from the coded answers. To a large extent the results are in line with expectations.

The results, such as they are though, do call for further research. The most immediate is a more thorough-going analysis of the results for the Gaelic speakers as such in the more recent WILP survey. The second is a more penetrative motivational and psycholinguistic study of Gaelic speakers, especially those who are parents and children.

Gaelic speakers in the community

Are there any other indications of what sort of people best maintain the language and those who abandon it ?

Table 3 presents the scores which were computed for the principal factors in this present analysis. These are presented for the Western Isles and the other major sub-samples. On the whole the Western Isles sub-sample shows up more strongly for Gaelic in terms of the extent to which the respondent used the language over the past day, and reported using it in the community.

Skye represented an intermediate case between the Western Isles and the rest of Scotland. Since the sampling undertaken in the Highlands was chiefly in the Inverness and Fort William areas, this can essentially be regarded as part of mainland Scotland – and can be treated as such in any further analysis. However, personal support and Gaelic language loyalty levels for Gaelic were lowest amongst these respondents – and in contrast – highest amongst the ‘Lowland' sample.

( The qualification and occupational levels are really some indication of effectiveness of the research methodology. Since this was quota sampled the occupation level should have been around 3.5 in all cases, and the qualification level around 1.5. In the Skye sub-sample the student interviewers may have been more actively interviewing around Sabhal Mor Ostaig than in their own home areas.)

Gaelic language use by age and gender

Table 4 examines respondents' use of Gaelic over the past day by age and gender. Women seem to be marginally more salient in using Gaelic than the men in their everyday lives. However this is strongly age-related for both gender groups – and overall. In other words it is measuring the very rapid language shift over time - in this case the present life-span of the respondent group.

Table 5 similarly examines the extent to which respondents use Gaelic in the community. The men were marginally more likely to use Gaelic in the community than the women overall, and usage also was generally age-related..

Both tables are evidence of advanced language shift. The point is however, how to change it. In order effectively to target language strategies and policies, it would be highly desirable to realise what sorts of people tend to maintain Gaelic better, and which sorts of people tend to relinquish it.

Gaelic language loyalty and support by age and gender

Tables 6 and 7 examine these factors in detail. The support measure was based upon a single question which asked the extent of the respondent's interest in Gaelic expressed as a ‘mark out of ten'. This was also complemented by eleven questions examining opinions on salient issues relating to Gaelic. From this a language loyalty score was computed. This was a more discriminative measure, and levels were on the whole lower than the support measure.

The support measure produced no differences between men and women respondents overall, but it was strongly age-related in both cases. The younger respondents were very demonstrably less interested and supportive of Gaelic than the older respondents. In any strategy of language maintenance and recovery it will be vital to turn round the attitudes of the younger respondents to their language.

In terms of the language loyalty measure, the younger women seemed generally to be more supportive of the language than the younger men. Amongst the male respondents loyalty seemed age-related, with the older men rather more supportive than the younger. The older men were thus marginally more loyal towards Gaelic than the older women. However on these numbers this may not be a very confident conclusion. Otherwise amongst the women and overall, language loyalty was highest amongst the 25 – 44 and 45 – 64 age-groups.

Gaelic language use and support by occupational category

Table 8 looks at respondents in terms of occupational category, and the extent to which this associates with Gaelic language support, loyalty and usage.

In terms of personal support for Gaelic, the professional and managerial groups registered the highest levels, although this was not entirely the case with the Gaelic language loyalty score. This was based upon eleven questions and was therefore a more broad-based and penetrative measure. The higher professional and managerial group registered lowest on this score, and the lower professional and managerial group measured the highest. This is in line with previous studies (such as MacKinnon 1994b, 1997, 1998) which found that the ‘semi-profession' group of teachers, nurses, and other such workers in the public services, and who were generally local, educated Gaelic speakers,were the most loyal and supportive to their language. Previous studies had also indicated strength of support within the semi-unskilled manual group which comprises the ‘crofting core' of the community. Here though loyalty scores were marginally higher amongst the unskilled group – although this may have been a factor of allocation by interviewers of such respondents into this group.

In terms of usage of Gaelic in everyday life the professional and managerial groups registered the highest scores, closely followed by the semi- and un-skilled groups respectively. In terms of community usage, the highest scorers were the higher professional/managerial, semi- and un-skilled manual groups. This is in line with previous studies, and probably indicates sociolinguistic realities. Attention has been drawn to the weaknesses on these counts of the intermediate C1 (skilled manual and non-manual) and lesser prestige D and U (unskilled manual and unclassified) groups.

In terms of keeping Gaelic in active use, the semi-professional / public service and the semi- and un-skilled manual crofting groups form the community core who best maintain and use the language. The intermediate C1 and unclassified groups seem to be less supportive and less inclined to use their language. Language strategies should therefore take these factors into account, harness the strengths of the more supportive groups, and target the weaknesses of those who appear to be the less supportive.

Implications and recommendations

The weakness of Gaelic language transmission in the family and the low levels of Gaelic usage amongst children call for urgent and vigorous language planning strategies. Provision of supportive measures in the children's schooling is an obvious priority. At the time of this survey only 457 of the area's 2,619 primary schoolchildren were in Gaelic medium schooling – or 17.5%. Even at the time of writing, April 2006 it stands at only 492 primary pupils out of 2,130 – or 23.1%. This seems to call for fresh thinking and new strategic approaches. The education authority has considered initiating a small number of all-Gaelic schools with a view to more general implementation in 15 years time. But there will probably be no majority Gaelic communities remaining by that time, and the language will have ceased amongst young people altogether unless broad new strategies are rapidly developed and a new vision for the future is swiftly manifested.

Similarly an initiative aimed at strengthening Gaelic within the family is imperative. This is the first aim of the Western Isles Language Plan initiative to be launched this month (on 18 th. April 2006) – and it is absolutely right both in the Western Isles and in the rest of Scotland where three-quarters of Gaelic speakers now live. There needs to be new infrastructure and support measures both within and outwith the family if Gaelic is effectively to be maintained. Wherever they may now be located, Gaelic-speaking families comprise a ‘mini-Gaidhealtachd' which today can be found anywhere in Scotland. Wherever they are presently located, they face similar problems of language maintenance and intergenerational transmission. This reality calls for urgent measures of infrastructural support whether in the Western Isles or elsewhere.

Today powerful social and economic pressures permeate even the strongest Gaelic community, right into the family. Every aspect of contemporary life is delivered very forcibly through the medium of English. There are thus very powerful prompts in all aspects of modern life to use English at the expense of Gaelic. If there is to be any meaningful place for Gaelic to be maintained within its own remaining communities, countervailing measures need to be created. This is the purpose of local language planning. This will need to be developed beyond the official domain into the voluntary, commercial and local public services domains if it is to be at all effective.

Elsewhere minority speech communities have developed organisations concerned with language in family life. In inter-war Wales Yr Undeb Genedlaethol was the precursor of much which happened in the later 20 th century: Welsh-medium playgroups, primary and secondary schooling. In pre-war Wales there were over 60 local groups actively promoting and supporting Welsh in family life. This was the foundation for everything which followed. In Ireland Na Teaghlaigh Ghaelacha – now reformulated as Comhluadar – provides similar infracultural support. In New Zealand traditional models: marae and kohanga reo have been modernised as Maori language community social points and language acquisition centres. In each of these cases active recovery of language has resulted. The Gaelic world could well look at models elsewhere and then develop what is appropriate for its own situation. Whether such an initiative targeted upon the family could be best built upon Comunn nam Pàrant, which already exists and works within this area, or whether a purpose-built initiative should be attempted is a priority for urgent consideration.

The levels of usage of Gaelic in people's everyday lives and generally within the community which this study has illuminated have not improved over the intervening decade. The present situation is that this is probably our last chance to retain actual Gaelic speaking communities. The next five years between now and the 2011 census will be crucial and without effective strategies driven by a fresh vision, Gaelic will cease as community speech within its last home areas. There will be no further ‘strongholds' or ‘heartlands'. This is the reality of the situation which faces policymakers today.

Strategies and policies cannot be formulated in the dark, and will require appropriate action research – much as market research underlies any successful business enterprise and permeates all its decision-making. A start could be made now with the further analysis of the Gaelic speakers in the WILP research study. This is highly necessary for language planning in the Western Isles – and its great virtues are that it could be rapid and cheap to undertake. A similar study needs to be undertaken nationally as an update of Euromosaic. This too could be quite speedily undertaken – and with reasonable economy. In Wales the governmental social surveys undertook a nation-wide study of Welsh in the family as part of their routine national survey procedures. Similar might be undertaken in Scotland. Since 1994 I have been calling for motivational and psycholinguistic studies of Gaelic speakers and users – especially at family level. Without such a study policies aimed at Gaelic at this crucial level for its future fortunes will be hit-or-miss.

The language planning job cannot be done without appropriate strategies and policies. These cannot be formulated without appropriate research.

Kenneth MacKinnon 20.04.06 Copyright 2006 © K. MacKinnon

References

Chalmers, D. (2003) The Economic Impact of Gaelic Arts and Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: Glasgow Caledonian University.

Jenniges, R., (1995) Feeling at Home in Your Language, Brussels: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. (pp. 33 – 34)

Nelde, P., Strubell, M., and Williams, G., (1996) Euromosaic – the production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

MacKinnon, K., (1994a) Gaelic in 1994 – Report to EU Euromosaic Project, Barcelona / Research Centre Wales, Bangor.

MacKinnon, K. (1994b) ‘Gaelic Language-Use in the Western Isles', in Fenton, A. and MacDonald, D.A. (eds.) 1994 Studies in Scots and Gaelic: proceedings of Third International Conference on the Languages of Scotland, Edinburgh 25 – 27 Jul 1991, Edinburgh: Canongate. ISBN 1 898410 11 9 pp.123 – 137.

MacKinnon, K., (1997) ‘Gaelic in Family and Community: Western Isles 1986/88 – 1994/95 from Survey and Census Data', paper to Fifth International Conference on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster, University of Aberdeen 1 – 5 th August 1997.

MacKinnon, K. (1998) ‘Language-Use and Viability in Contemporary Gaelic-speaking Communities: Skye and the Western Isles Today', in Ureland, P. S., and Broderick, G. (eds.) (1998) Language Contact in the British Isles, Tübingen: Niemeier. (pp. 495 – 534)

MacKinnon, K. (2000) ‘Identity, Attitudes and Support for Gaelic Policies: Gaelic Speakers in the Euromosaic Survey 1994/95', paper to the Sixth International Conference on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster, The Queen's University of Belfast, 9 - 13 th August 2000. ( in Kirk. J. M. and Ó Baoill, D. P. (eds.) Language Links: the Languages of Scotland and Ireland. Belfast: Queen's University Press ISBN 0 85389 795 6 pp.177 – 186.

Sproull. A and Ashcroft (1994) the Economics of Gaelic Language Development. Glasgow: Caledonian University.

Sproull, A and Chalmers, D. (1998) The Demand for Gaelic Artistic and Cultural products and services: Patterns and Impacts. Glasgow: Caledonian University.

Western Isles Language Plan Project (2005) Research and Outcomes of the Phase 1 of the Project: Final Report. Stornoway: Fosglan, Lews Castle College.

Acknowledgements

EU Euromosaic Project and EU Task Force Resources Humaines for financial support, and Research Centre Wales and University of Wales, Bangor for computing facilities.

Affiliation

Kenneth MacKinnon is Visiting Professor and Emeritus Reader in the Sociology of Language at the University of Hertfordshire. He is also Honorary Professor in Celtic / Language Planning at the University of Aberdeen, and an Associate Lecturer of the Open University in Social Sciences, Education and Language Studies

Contact details:-

SGRÙD Research , Ivy Cottage, Ferintosh, The Black Isle, by Dingwall, Ross-shire IV7 8HX

Tel: 01349 – 863460 E-mail: kenmackinnon@enterprise.net

Website: http://www.sgrud.org.uk/