Conchúr Ó Giollagáin: “Minority languages need to strengthen their strongholds, the areas where they are truly spoken”

Conchúr Ó Giollagáin: The denser the population of speakers in a given area, the stronger the language. The challenge for minority languages in Europe today is that they are losing these high-density zones and this crisis threatens the very existence of minority languages. What is happening in the Basque Country is happening elsewhere too. The experiences of modernity and postmodernity pose major challenges to minority communities, and current language policies are not adequate to address them.

A philosophical debate has emerged in sociolinguistics. On one side, there are those concerned with the survival and continuity of speaker groups; on the other, those who focus on identity and symbolic promotion of the language. In most cases, institutions find it easier to promote the symbolic aspects of minority languages than to address the political and social difficulties within communities. Governments and public institutions generally find it simpler to manage the organisations they fund. So current policies often overlook the disappearance of speaker communities, emphasising instead symbolic promotion. Minority languages need to strengthen their strongholds, the areas where they are truly spoken.

In practice, political institutions invest in education, media, new technologies and the arts when promoting a language. In Ireland, for example, language planning policies have been in place for four generations, with millions spent on promotion. Yet initiatives specifically aimed at strengthening existing speaker communities are scarce. Measures to maintain rural populations and provide opportunities for locals, thereby preserving strongholds, are lacking. After a century of language planning, it is difficult to identify policies designed to ensure that today’s Irish-speaking communities can endure. Organisations working to support minority languages often focus on maintenance rather than expansion, content with the current structures because they receive funding and institutional support. In doing so, they unintentionally contribute to a kind of camouflage operation by the government, leaving ordinary citizens unaware of the real situation. Symbolic policies are usually tolerated by majority language supporters, precisely because they know it is all symbolic and ultimately ineffective.

Of course, there are different types of minority language speakers. We need to ask which ones are most productive and who creates life for the language. In dense areas, the language thrives, speakers support one another and work to sustain cultural continuity. When linguistic compactness weakens, the language often becomes optional, secondary. All speakers are important and deserve institutional support, but we need to face reality: different groups require different kinds of support. Today’s biggest policy error is favouring one group over others. This leaves people living in strongholds feeling abandoned, because they should be the primary target of language policies.

It is a good question. Even major languages face similar pressures under globalisation, but these dynamics are more pronounced for minority languages because English dominates the digital world. All languages now exist in a diglossic relationship with English. Minority languages also exist in diglossic relationships with surrounding languages and with English, which creates a kind of double diglossia. This highlights the superficiality of current policies, which focus on easy, visible promotion rather than deeper social dynamics. Even strong minority languages, such as Catalan, Basque and Welsh, face crises. This shows that the diagnosis is flawed and that policies must be honest with speakers, who clearly see the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Not facing reality is a form of denial. In Ireland, for example, this denial is based on false optimism. People need good news, but optimism needs a foundation. How can policies be optimistic if they ignore reality? Denying the difficulties faced by speakers, especially in strongholds, creates a toxic optimism that worsens the situation. Achieving new speakers is positive, but it brings other challenges that must also be addressed. If policy focuses solely on toxic optimism, Basque strongholds, for example, could disappear, the dominant culture of Spanish would prevail, and Basque could become a hobby for Spanish speakers. That might satisfy some, but we should ask Basque speakers whether they want a living language or a hobby. Current policies lean towards the hobby model, not a living culture.

The generation living in the Gaeltacht strongholds today is likely to be the last. Since the 1990s, these areas have been in crisis, but Irish language policy has been in denial: it has focused on creating new speakers rather than supporting existing ones. This philosophy has even influenced strongholds, leading to failure. This will be the last generation to live fully in Irish – not just using it briefly each day, but living in Irish twenty-four hours a day. Many Irish language organisations will outlast the community itself, ironically, as no one dares admit this for fear of losing funding. Despite being a state with a century of language policies, the reality is that the true Gaeltacht community is dying.

In Ireland, only 20,000 people are first-language speakers living fully in Irish strongholds. By contrast, 1.7 million claim some knowledge of the language. Whether they actually speak it is unclear, but this reflects a century of symbolic language policy. In Scotland, only 11,000 people remain in strongholds. We need to face these realities: strongholds must be socially, economically and territorially viable. As they empty, the language’s situation becomes increasingly precarious.