I must say I don't see the point of Irish signs in a country where the everyday language is English and only a minority of the population speak Irish fluently. But if that's what some people want, it doesn't really bother me one way or the other.
People justify dual language signs on the basis that they promote linguistic diversity, they encourage people to learn Irish and they recognise our close ties to the Republic of Ireland.
But there are only 72,000 Irish speakers in Northern Ireland out of a population of two million, so I wouldn't have thought dual language signs were a high priority.
And why only road signs? What about all the other signs on public buildings? Shouldn't they also be dual language?
There's a big lobby to have dual language signs on the new Grand Central Station, and an equally big lobby not to. I await the outcome with interest.
Personally I have no desire to learn Irish, especially as it's a famously hard language to learn. Jenny has been learning Irish for some time despite all its oddities and its fiendish pronunciation. But fluency is still a long way off.
Official policy on language is always political, not just practical. Even in the Irish Republic, essentially the whole population speaks English (even if some also speak Irish to varying degrees), yet Irish signs are ubiquitous -- not for practical reasons, but to assert national identity and distinctness from the UK. When I visited Kyiv in 2007, most official signs were in Ukrainian even though it's a Russian-speaking city (or it was at the time -- I imagine usage of Russian has become less popular in the last few years). Again, it was about assertion of identity. The US has no official language, but right-wing elements here vehemently object to the increasing use of Spanish as a second language in business, as a sign of the changing character of the country. I would expect that in Northern Ireland, strong feelings for or against Irish signs correlate pretty closely with opinions about political and cultural connections with the Irish Republic vs with the UK. Practicality doesn't have much to do with it.
ReplyDeleteInfidel: Absolutely true that political and cultural connections are the issue and not practicality. Bilingual road signs imply support for a united Ireland, which is why unionists oppose them.
DeleteI think it's aesthetically messy. Less is more, and all that.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: Yes, it's aesthetically messy. But just completely unnecessary - and done for political and cultural reasons, as Infidel says.
DeleteNick, where do you see a problem ? Why should 70 000 Irish speaking persons not have the right to confirm their language officially.? We have in Brandenburg and Lausitz the Sorbs, a recognized minority with their own language and traditions and nobody tries to limit their way of life. They have TV news in their language and children learn it in school. I thought you were more open minded. Nobody is forcing you to learn Irish
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah: Surely a language can be confirmed without having to put it on road signs? If 70,000 people are speaking Irish, and there are lots of Irish classes, surely that's confirmation enough? We can also access TG4, the Irish TV channel. And I'm not objecting to minorities having their own language and traditions. Of course no one is forcing me to learn Irish, I never said they were.
DeleteI don't think it's that odd, considering you're in Ireland. But I truly enjoy linguistics and would appreciate the comparison. We often see Spanish signs with English here, even though only 13% in the US speak Spanish (mostly in the west). Personally, I think it's a great way for everyone to familiarize themselves with another language.
ReplyDelete