Language Decline and Language Revival in the Isle of Man

LANGUAGE DECLINE AND LANGUAGE REVIVAL IN THE ISLE OF MAN

Ned Maddrell Memorial Lecture
Manx Museum, Douglas, Isle of Man
Thursday, 28 November 1996

Abbreviations and Definitions:
AL - Abandoned Language (language which is dying out - here Manx Gaelic).
ES - External Setting: Extra-linguistic factors, e.g. historical, socio-linguistic, economic.
HLSM - Handbook of Late Spoken Manx (cf. Broderick 1984/86).
LD - Language Decay: Pathological language disintegration.
LP - Language Replacement (= Comnplete Shift): Total replacement of AL by TL (possibly TL/AL substratum, i.e. an AL-influenced variety (dialect) of TL).
LT - Language Transmission: Deliberate direct passing on of a language from one generation to the next.
LTS - Language Transmission Strategies: The whole array of techniques used by adults to assist their children in first language acquisition - motherese, repetitions, exercise games, corrections, word-discussion, metacommunications, etc.
PL - Primary Language, with higher degree of lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic competence.
PLS - Primary Language Shift: Shift from AL as Primary to TL as Primary and from TL as Secondary to AL as Secondary.
RS - Rusty Speaker: a Terminal Speaker who has not spoken AL for some considerable time and has thereby forgotten much of it.
SB - Speech Behaviour: Regular use of different languages, or different registers of a language for different domains.
SC- Structural Consequences: Formal linguistic phenomena, changes in phonology, morphology, syntax, & lexicon in the language under threat.
SL - Secondary Language, with lower degree of lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic competence.
SS - Semi-speaker: Member of the post-Language Transmission break generation with imperfect knowledge of AL.
TL - Target Language (dominant language which is continued - here English).
TS - Terminal Speaker: Last generation speaker.
Simplification - Removal of linguistic complexities.
Reduction - Removal of significant/essential/functionally necessary parts of the language.

1. Studies in Language Decline and Death in Insular Celtic
The study of language decline and death as a branch of linguistics is relatively recent, and theories or models to deal with this phenomenon are now being constructed. The most recent is that of Hans-Jürgen Sasse (Sasse 1992), where he postulates a schema based on the works of Nancy Dorian for East Sutherland Gaelic, Scotland (Dorian 1973-89; see also MacKinnon 1977-91), of Lukas Tsitsipis on Arvanitika, a peripheral Albanian dialect in north-western Greece (Tsitsipis 1981), and Sasse’s own on Arvanitika (Sasse 1991). This schema will be looked at more closely below.
In the sphere of the Insular Celtic languages, however, so far only Scottish Gaelic in the context of Language Death has been the subject of minute analysis both from a formal linguistic, as well as from a sociolinguistic standpoint (see below), though one or two more general studies are available, e.g. an overview of the terminal stages in dying Goidelic dialects (Stockman 1988), and a sociolinguistic overview of the Celtic languages in general today (Greene 1981).

2. A Schema of Language Decline and Death
In the context of the Insular Celtic languages the term ‘language death’ has been applied by Dressler (1972a/b, 1981), Dressler & Wodak-Leodolter (1977), and by Dorian (1973-1981) in circumstances which reflect the processes of decline and decay in the dialects of Breton and Scottish Gaelic discussed by them. Dressler (1981: 5) regards Language Death “as the final state of the decay of linguistic structure a minority language undergoes on the way to total language shift”. In the case of Manx the ‘state of language decay’ could properly be applied to the Late Manx period (late 19th, 20th-cents.) where the evidence for this period is based (except for the Faragher material, cf. Broderick (1981-82)), exclusively on the material collected from the native speakers (cf. HLSM/I: xv-xxxii, HLSM/III: xi-xxxvi). The floruits of the earlier speakers range from ca.1840-1935, and of the later - the last dozen or so - from ca.1860-1974. The period of language shift in Man extends essentially from ca.1840- ca.1880, and by 1900 the shift was, with perhaps the exception of Cregneash where Manx lingered on till ca.1910, to all intents and purposes complete. The ‘later’ native speakers were reared in Manx, either from their parents or grandparents (or great aunt in the case of Ned Maddrell, the last native speaker), at a time when Manx outside their immediate community was passing rapidly into extinction, if not already extinct. For communication outside their community English was necessary and came to be their ordinary means of discourse till their deaths (except in the presence of enthusiasts when they were pressed to resuscitate their knowledge of Manx for the purposes of the Revival).
Such speakers can for our purposes here be regarded as Terminal Speakers, in so far as they are the last native speakers reared with Manx as their first language (with perhaps the exception of Ned Maddrell who apparently knew some English before he learned Manx) and by all accounts had full command of it, though in later years owing to lack of use of their Manx they had forgotten much of it. In such circumstances they could be regarded as Rusty Speakers¹.
From personal enquiry with those concerned, this approach by enthusiasts first took place in the mid-1930s as a result of Professor Marstrander’s visits to Man 1929-1933 (cf. Marstrander 1929-33). The sound-recordings made of the last native speakers between 1948 and 1972 (Irish Folklore Commission 1948, Manx Museum 1949-52, Manx Language Society 1951-53, Linguistic Survey of Scotland 1972, etc; see HLSM/I & III (Intro.)) record their efforts at remembering the Manx of their youth.
The degree of fluency varies, and inhibitions could perhaps be attributed more to the presence of the microphone and recording machine than any short-comings on their part. A cursory glance at the material (collected between 1909 and 1972) makes clear that it is fairly homogenous, though the presence and influence of anglicisation, particularly in the syntax and sentence structure, is especially noticeable in the speech of the later Terminal Speakers. In most cases, however, Manx had ceased to be the everyday language since the period of youth, and in some instances a lapse of some 60 years had taken place before the language was brought back to mind. Even Marstrander commented that his best speaker Thomas Christian of Ramsey (1851-1930) “was a long time without practice at speaking the language” (Marstrander 1929-33: 53-54, in Broderick (forthcoming 2)).
It has been shown (cf. Broderick 1991: 65-81) that nominal inflection in Manx, for example, had reached a stage of relative simplicity before the era of the last native speakers, and any ‘lapses’ in grammar, etc, could in part be due more to imperfect memory on their part in later life than to imperfect learning in infancy or youth (i.e. hallmark of the Rusty Speaker). Nevertheless, their Manx does exhibit features of ‘linguistic decay’ (for details cf. Broderick 1991: 87-90, (forthcoming 2)). In no case, so far as is known, had any of the last native speakers passed Manx on to his/her children, even if most, if not all, took great pride in the language, since they realised that to ‘get on’ in life English was essential. The position of Manx would fit the description as expressed by Dorian that

a group undergoes a long period during which its language is actively devalued, while speakers of that language are penalised socially and economically, before members of the group see fit to withhold that language from their own children (Dorian 1981: 106, n. 24).
In presenting his schema Sasse (Sasse 1992: 9-19) observes three types of phenomena which he regards as relevant to the study of Language Death:
1. The External Setting (ES) whereby extra-linguistic factors, such as cultural, socio-linguistic, ethno-historical, economic, etc, create pressure (whether political, or whatever) in a given speech community, which forces that community to give up its language. It is this setting which triggers off the process ending in Language Death (Sasse 1992: 9-10). For details of the socio-linguistic setting of Manx, cf. Broderick 1991: 91-114.
2. Speech Behaviour (SB), namely, the regular use of variables whereby different languages in multilingual settings, or different styles or registers of one language are used in various domains or situations (Sasse 1992: 10).
3. Structural Consequences (SC) are the formal linguistic phenomena, i.e. changes in the phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon of the language threatened by extinction. Structural impoverishment and so-called ‘bastardisation’ (or ‘going to pot’ as it is called in Man) may help accelerate the process of Language Death in the final stages (Sasse 1992: 10).
As the political and social conditions are primary, ES phenomena must therefore have an impact on SB. Attitudes towards languages and styles of language, Sasse (1992: 10) adds:
develop on the basis of political, social and economic pressure, and this pressure in turn develops on the basis of the historical situation in which a speech community finds itself. Endangered languages remain functionally intact and are not regarded as ‘deviant’ until they reach the terminal stage of entinction (Sasse 1992: 11).
For his framework for Language Death Sasse has taken the situation of East Sutherland Gaelic (Dorian 1973-1989) and Arvanitika, a peripheral Albanian dialect in Greece (Tsitsipis 1981, Sasse 1991) as his models, since both have been investigated in great detail both from a sociolinguistic and formal linguistic standpoint. This framework Sasse (1992: 11-19) calls his GAM (Gaelic-Arvanitika-Model). This model is essentially adapted in this study, but with some slight modification to reflect the situation of Manx.
The present state of research into Language Death shows that the interrelation of the three aspects as outlined above is one of chain reaction: External Setting phenomena induce a certain kind of Speech Behaviour, which in turns results in certain Structural Consequences in the dying language, i.e. the extra-linguistic factors appear first; this sets off a change in speech behaviour due to or as a reaction to the former. Finally structural changes emerge as a result of the change in speech behaviour. The first appearance of the factors in each case would be phased-displaced and would operate continually throughout the entire process.
The following diagram would show this:
Figure 1 (after Sasse 1992: 13):
--->
ES |____________________________----------------
SB |_____________________________--------------
SC |______________________________----------------

Every case of Language Death is embedded in a bilingual situation which involves two languages, one which is dying out and one which which continues. The language given up is usually referred to as the Abandoned Language (henceforth A L), in our case Manx Gaelic, and the language acquired is called the Target Language (TL), in our case English. The story begins when a substantial portion of a bilingual speech community shows simultaneous, or near simultaneous shift in their Primary Language (PL), from AL to TL and a consequent shift in their Secondary Language (SL) from TL to AL, i.e. (in our case) the PL (Manx) takes precedence over the TL (English), then in the process of language shift the TL (English) takes precedence over the AL (Manx). This process Sasse (1992: 13) calls Primary Language Shift (PLS). Sasse continues:

How is primary language shift initiated? It is triggered by the decision of [members of] a speech community to cease to transmit their language to their descendants. The result is an interruption in language transmission (LT) (Sasse 1992: 13).
Language Transmission is the deliberate passing on of a language from one generation to the next. The process by which this is achieved is known as Language Tramnsmission Strategy (LTS), which, as Ingram (1989: 127) shows, seems to be partly intuitive and partly community-specific (traditional), and which involves a specific way in which mothers (or language-transmitting agents) talk to their children, the so-called motherese (cf. Kaye 1980), as well as repetitions, exercise games, corrections, and other types of metacommunications (e.g. discussions about word-meaning) and a strong tendency to assist and encourage children in their own efforts to improve their linguistics skills. LTS is therefore essential to language acquisition.
Interruption in language transmission to the next generation can be motivated by several considerations, e.g. restrictive language policy, economic reasons, etc. However, studies in Language Death situations so far available to us, as Sasse (1992: 13-14) points out, indicate one common factor, viz. the presence of socio-economic and/or socio-psychological pressures which move the members of an economically weaker or minority speech community to give up its langauge. This happens very often as a result of negative language attitude which leads to doubts about the usefulness of language loyalty. The attitude towards AL may not be entirely negative, i.e. the language is valued for one reason, but rejected for another - its serves as a badge of group identity, but is given up because it is regarded as useless; in the Manx case cha nod oo cosney ping lesh y Ghailck ‘you can’t earn a penny with Manx’ was the cry from many a Manxman during the last and this century.
Uneven distribution of languages in a bi- or multilingual situation always results, so Sasse (1992: 14), in complementary distribution of domains, which consequently leads to lexical loss or failure of lexical development in domains where the dominant language is favoured. Due to the restriction of domains, collective bilingualism increases, because the speakers are forced to learn the dominant language in order to use it in domains where the recessive language cannot be used (cf. Hill 1973, Dressler - Wodak-Leodolter 1977, Tsitsipis 1981). This may increase interference and simplification (e.g. loss of complex morphophonemic systems, etc), but AL nevertheless still remains a functionally intact language.
However, once the decision to abandon AL has been taken and language transmission ceases, the situation changes radically. The former primary language AL (Manx) becomes secondary and begins to show serious symptoms of imperfection, and due to a lack of LTS the only source of AL data for the infant is what he occasionally hears in his environment. In addition, in a situation where most, if not all, domains have been taken over by TL, AL is simply no longer used in a number of important speech styles (e.g. narrative, formal, etc). From a sociolinguistic standpoint the restrictive use of AL has a feedback on the speaker’s sociopsychological evaluation and contributes to a negative attitude towards AL (cf. also Dressler 1982: 324ff).
It is at this point, so Sasse (1992: 15), that we enter the phase of ‘Language Death’. This is characterised by a process called Language Decay (LD). Language Decay is defined as the serious linguistic disintegration typical of the speech of the so-called Semi-Speakers (SS), i.e. that speaker generation which results from the interruption of language transmission and acquires an imperfect knowledge of AL due to a lack of LTS in that language.

Their morphology is extremely defective, they lose important grammatical categories such as tense, aspect, mood, even if these categories are present in T[L]. Their speech often shows a pidgin-like simplification of syntax and a strong insecurity in the mapping of forms and functions. They are hardly able to master the phonological distinctions of A[L] and show extreme variation in their pronunciation (Sasse 1992: 15).
In the process of Language Decay two symptoms are discernible: simplification and reduction. Simplification is the loss of external complexity and involves readjustments in substance (but essentially the language remains intact), while Reduction is the loss of essentials in both form and substance and results in defectivity, disintegration and heavy expression deficit. The first, so Sasse (1992: 16), can occur in normal language contact situations involving the transfer of substantial material, of patterns, and of category distiction, and can always be explained as the imitation by the first language of some linguistic trait or traits of the second. However in the second, in the case of Language Decay, we are not dealing with imitation or borrowing or transfer in any sense, but with downright loss leading to substantial deficit.
An example of this is negative borrowing, a morphosyntactic borrowing process connected with any situation of intensive language contact, whereby a category is lost in the first language because of its absence in the model language. However, this ‘loss’ can be compensated by functionally equivalent means of expression which imitate the morphosyntactic pattern of the model language (or not, as the case may be, provided the sense is not disturbed, e.g. loss of lention in LMx. does not affect comprehension), while in LD no compensation takes place at all and results in functional defectivity (e.g. loss of conditional tense in LMx).

What remains of the A language in the phase of decay is not a language in the sense properly understood (a structured code), but an amorphous mass of words and word forms, stereotype sentences and phrases, formulaic expressions, idioms and proverbs, which are learned in “chunks”, whose forms are imperfectly known and whose functions are poorly understood. When used in actual conversation, these linguistic fossils are put together in some random linear order without fixed syntactic rules [...]. Semi-speakers often remember an amazing amount of vocabulary, but may get totally lost with morphology and syntax [...]. In spite of their being normal full speakers of T[L], they suffer from the awareness of their linguistic deficiency in A[L], especially as long as A[L] is still represented in their environment by a sufficient number of full speakers. This creates a kind of collective language-pathological situation which can be overcome by the acceleration of language death. Many semi-speakers avoid speaking a language in which they cannot easily express themselves and which they conceive of as a bastardised, pidginised non-language (the typical attitude of a semi-speaker [and/or descedants influenced by him/her]: ‘X is not a language’) (Sasse 1992: 17).

At what point is a language regarded as dead? Was Manx a dead language when Heinrich Wagner and Kenneth Jackson interviewed its last speaker Ned Maddrell in 1949/50, or did it die when Ned Maddrell died (1974)? Was Hebrew a dead language before its revival in the form of Ivrith, or did it never die? Did Manx never die? Perhaps the answer can only be given from case to case. In linguistic terms, however, the final point of Language Death is the cessation of regular communication in that language in a given community, irrespective of any sentiment to the contrary.

A dead language may leave residues of various kinds. It may continue as a ritual language, as a secret language, as a professional jargon, etc. It may leave a codified version, which in turn can be used for ritual or other purposes. It may finally leave a substratum influence (especially lexically) in the dialect of T[L] which the former speech community of A[L] continues to speak (Sasse 1992: 18).

In the case of Manx this has left a substratum mainly of lexical, but also of phonological and syntactic traces in Manx-English, that dialect of English spoken in Man by the older generation of native-born Manx men and women (cf. Barry 1984, Broderick (forthcoming 1)). Further research work on Manx English is now being undertaken by the University of Liverpool.
An overview of GAM can be sketched as follows (see page 22):

4. Language Revival²
Revival or revitalisation of languages at different stages of Language Death is possible depending on the phase of Language Death reached by the language in question. Three phases are discernible (after Sasse 1992: 20). These summarise the above outline:

1. Primary Language Shift
A/P > A/S : T/S > T/P. This takes place in the entire speech community or the greater part of it (stragglers notwithstanding). In our case the demotion of Manx from primary to secondary language, and the simultaneous promotion of English from secondary to primary language.
II. Language Decay
Emergence of Semi-Speakers
Reduction of Style Repertoire -> Reduction of Grammatical Systems
Pragmatic Incompetence -> Structural Incompetence.
III/1 Language Death
Extinction of Communication in A -> Extinction of Creativity in A.
III/2 Language Replacement
Full monolingual Proficiency in TL (here English) - possible substratum phenomena; emergence of a TL dialect on AL substratum (here Manx English).

A language is regarded as ‘healthy’ before it enters Phase I, but it becomes ‘threat-ened’ immediately after that point. Once a new language becomes dominant in a certain speech community the old one is potentially endangered, unless there exists a very strong motivation to retain it. Such motives can easily develop on the basis of an altered political situation:

a) emergence of an independent state with a national government (cf. Lithuania),
b) emergence of separatist movements (cf. Basque, Corsica),
c) support from an ethnically or linguistically related community from outside (cf. Italo-Albanian as supported by Albania),
d) removal of social pressure on the part of the dominant community (cf. France re Breton),
e) re-ermergence of interest in the community which initially rejected the older language (cf. Isle of Man).
In Phase I: Revitalisation during Phase I whereby AL becomes Primary again by reinforced interest in its transmission is possible. So long as there are sufficient full speakers of AL left, these same speakers may begin to teach their children or grandchildren on the basis of renewed interest in the language.
In Phase II: When Phase II is at an advanced stage revitalisation would only be possible via ‘creolisation’ (either by mixture with some related standard language - in the case of Manx with Irish and/or Scottish Gaelic) or by mixture with a non-related language, perhaps TL, on the basis of semi-speaker material. In extreme cases this is possible by a generation ‘skip’ (i.e. the oldest generation still speaks the language, the middle generation oscillates between semi-speaker and zero, the youngest generation acquires the language anew (from the older generation). As Sasse sees it:

Revival by means of creolisation is close on the fringe of natural revitalisation, and it is questionable whether such cases would be regarded as a continuation of the same language. Perhaps it would seem more useful to treat them as ‘language renewal’ or ‘language birth’, i.e. the creation of an entirely new language. This would enable us to define discontinuation of a linguistic tradition in a straightforward way: any total interruption of language transmission results in language death; any revival after total interruption of language transmission results in the creation of a new language (Sasse 1992: 21).

In Phase III: From Phase III onwards only articificial revitalisation on the basis of sound-recordings and/or literary material is possible. In such cases decisive political action is indispensible to the success of the revival, as in the case of Ivrith or Modern Hebrew. Otherwise the exercise is purely academic.
Where does all this leave Manx today? Let us look first at some facts:
1. Manx Gaelic as a community language in the Isle of Man passed into history ca.1880-1900, i.e. around the time the First Phase of the Revival got under way in the last decade of the 19th century.
2. The last native speakers survived the passing of Manx as a community language. They cease speaking it, thereby allowing their knowledge of it to lapse.
3. Initially prompted by Prof. Marstrander’s visits to Man 1929-33 a group of Manx Language enthusiasts began learning their Manx from the old native speakers (1930s-1950s/60s). This gallant band then passed their knowledge on to the next generation (1950s-70s), and that generation on to that of today. In that respect there has been an unbroken living tradition of spoken Manx Gaelic.

Nevertheless, this has existed in isolation in an artificial environment as a means of communication among a select few, and as such would be regarded in linguistic terms as a Kunstsprache ‘artificial language’. In such circumstances Manx has to an extent been used as a means of expressing ‘group identification’, concomitant with which has been the accusation by non-Manx-speaking Manxmen of ‘elitism’ (i.e. the ‘secret language’ syndrome).

Within the context of the framework in Figure 2 Manx today comes within the bounds of ‘group identification’ (i.e. as Kunstsprache ‘artificial language’, as noted above) in the last box of SB, and of ‘substratum knowledge’ as Manx English in the last box of SC.

Within the context of Figure 3 Manx comes within the ambit of Section III, though the Revival overlaps with the latter stages of Section I, passing through Section II to Section III. In other words, decisive political action is necessary and indispensible if the Revival of Manx is to have any meaning or significance within the Manx community.

Setting Manx within the above context, certain realities now need to be acknowledged, irrespective of what we may otherwise believe or wish to believe, and the following points are offered for consideration.

1. Manx exists today within an English-speaking environment whereby English is used in everyday life, e.g. at the bank, post office, in Government, etc. With the passing of Manx as a community language, the native ability to use Manx in its full vigour, with all its idiom to express the minutiae of daily life no longer exists, no matter how good we may feel we can speak Manx. Our competence in Manx cannot surpass our ability in our own native tongue (English). In such circumstances the use of conversational Manx, though it may well serve the purpose of attracting students to the language, is limited in its scope, and a full and worthwhile revival in my view cannot be solely based on it.

2. Given this situation the literary tradition is therefore indispensible. As we know, the literary tradition largely comprises religious material, which today we may find dry and uninviting. Nevertheless, this material (whether religious or secular) was written by native Manx speakers who knew how to use the language and who had full command of its range and idiom. The literary tradition can show us what the language can do, so that we can use it to the best of our ability. Otherwise there will develop a tendency for each to go his/her own way, and to make it up as we go along.
3. In addition, there is now a need for a full prescriptive grammar of Manx Gaelic put together by the best available expertise. Once the contents have been decided upon the grammar will act a guide, as a sort of Bible, to those wishing to study Modern Manx, i.e. it will provide a Standard for the future.
4. Manx is fortunate in having some 26 hours of sound-recordings of native Manx speech. Though these recordings may exhibit examples of Language Decay (and thereby have largely not been used for teaching purposes), nevertheless, they serve as a useful guide to the pronunciation of spoken Manx, and it is my view they should be brought into more regular use, in order to keep the pronunciation of spoken Manx today as close as possible with that of yesterday. Otherwise we run the risk of pronouncing Manx according to our own wish and whim.
5. I mentioned earlier that Language Transmission Strategy (including motherese) is essential to the continuation of a language by the next generation. The reintroduction of LTS by competent personnel can be provided through a Kindergarten environment, provided the realities of Manx are taken cognisance of.
The bringing of children to a Kindergarten is in itself a form of compulsory learning, since this is a decision taken by the parents, not by the children themselves. In recent discussions with a colleague who runs a Kindergarten in Mannheim. and who has to teach German to 3-year-olds and older of various nationalities, she made the following comments:
5.1. If the children coming into the Manx Kindergarten are native English speakers, then Manx is automatically a Fremdsprache ‘foreign language’, at best a ‘second language’.
5.2. If Manx is the normal everyday language outside the Kindergarten, then the child will accept what it is taught, even if there is some compulsion behind it. German is the everyday language here, and a child will readily adapt to that situation, irrespective of whatever language it speaks at home.
5.3. However, if Manx is not the normal everyday language outside the Kindergarten, as is the case today, the child will readily see that, and any compulsion to learn Manx is likely to be counter-productive. In such circumstances, if it is the desire of the parents that their child should continue Manx in the primary school as an option, then Manx in the Kindergarten has to be associated with something pleasant and full of delight, with having a grand time, e.g. in Manx songs and rhymes where it associates Manx with fine melodies or games.

As an extension of this Manx on children’s videos, such as Thomas the Tank Engine, are a must, and in my view every effort should now be made to making such videos available as quickly as possible, if it is not already the case.
However, I feel certain that those running Manx Kindergarten are well aware of these points.
Societies such as Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh have rendered sterling service in keeping the interest in Manx going over the years, particularly with its evening classes and publication programme of recent years. The Department of Education has also contributed to promoting this interst with its own evening classes, etc, and a look at the 1991 Census figures for Manx may be of interest.

1991 Census Figures regarding Manx
In contrast to the 1981 census, where no questions regarding Manx were asked, the census of 1991 sought information about those who could read, write, and/or speak Manx. They are as follows:

Table 1: Breakdown of Manx Gaelic Speakers, Writers and Readers by Residence.

Area of Residence: Speaks Manx Writes Manx Reads Manx

Town or District:
Douglas (capital) 166 65 103
Ramsey 65 39 48
Peel 53 32 46
Castletown 43 24 27
Port Erin 13 12 15
Port St. Mary 21 8 11
Laxey 10 6 8
Onchan 57 26 42
Parish:
Andreas 19 11 13
Arbory 20 12 17
Ballaugh 12 10 14
Braddan 22 10 16
Bride 11 4 7
German 9 5 8
Jurby 12 4 5
Lezayre 15 6 8
Lonan 10 10 11
Malew 11 5 11
Marown 13 6 13
Maughold 8 5 8
Michael 15 11 13
Patrick 16 14 17
Rushen 19 16 17
Santan 3 2 5
Total 643 343 479
Source: 1991 Isle of Man Population Census.
Analysis: Economic Affairs Division, Isle of Man Government.

Table 2: Breakdown of those with a knowledge of Manx Gaelic (persons who can speak and/or read and/or write Manx Gaelic) by age:
Age Group: Knowledge of Manx Gaelic
Under 5 yrs. 13
5 - 9 23
10 - 14 64
15 - 19 47
20 - 24 41
25 - 34 124
35 - 44 136
45 - 54 96
55 - 64 77
65 - 74 60
75 - 84 37
85 - 94 21
95+ 2
Total 741
Source: 1991 Isle of Man Population Census.
Analysis: Economic Affairs Division, Isle of Man Government.

Table 3: Breakdown of Manx Gaelic Speakers, Readers, and Writers by Age.
Age Group Speaks Manx Reads Manx Writes Manx
Under 5 yrs. 12 5 4
5 - 9 20 8 0
10 - 14 57 36 27
15 - 19 43 27 15
20 - 24 37 25 17
25 - 34 107 83 61
35 - 44 119 100 74
45 - 54 81 62 46
55 - 64 66 54 42
65 - 74 51 44 29
75 - 84 33 23 19
85 - 94 16 12 9
95+ 1
Total 643 479 343
Source: 1991 Isle of Man Population Census.
Analysis: Economic Affairs Division, Isle of Man Government.

Table 4: Breakdown of Manx Gaelic Speakers, Readers and Writers by Place of Birth
Place of birth Speaks Manx Reads Manx Writes Manx
Isle of Man 476 336 242
England 126 106 84
Wales 2 5 2
Scotland 12 12 7
Northern Ireland 8 2 0
Republic of Ireland 11 10 2
Other EU Country 2 3 2
Channel Islands 1 0 0
North America 1 2 1
Far East 4 3 3
Total 643 479 343
Source: 1991 Isle of Man Population Census.
Analysis: Economic Affairs Division, Isle of Man Government.

Table 5: Breakdown of Manx Gaelic Speakers, Readers, and Writers by Occupation
Occupation Speaks Manx Reads Manx Writes Manx

- Managers &

Administrators 53 45 36

- Professional Occ. 53 48 35
- Associate Professional

& Technical Occ. 30 26 19

- Clerical & Secretarial

Occupations 44 40 26

- Craft & Related

Occupations 70 51 44

- Personal & Protective

Service Occupations 30 18 14

- Sales Occupations 14 8 5
- Plant & Machine

Operatives 21 13 10

- Other Occupations 32 26 20

Total in Work 347 275 209
Source: 1991 Isle of Man Population Census.
Analysis: Economic Affairs Division, Isle of Man Government.

Comment:
1. The first thing to note is that without exception all persons who can speak, read, or write Manx today are learners of the language, and that the foregoing is a consequence of the latest imput into the Revival over the past 20 years or so. So far as is known, there are no native speakers in the ordinary sense of that term, i.e. there is no one at present who is brought up in Manx in an all-Manx speaking household, simply because Manx is not the community language of the Isle of Man. There are, however, a number of children who are spoken to at home in Manx by their parents (and perhaps others) some of the time. At best they may be regarded as early speakers.
2. These figures include the full range of competence in Manx, from those who could be regarded as fluent speakers to those who would know a few phrases.

Table 1:
1. As can be seen from the table, the larger numbers lie with those who can speak Manx. This would reflect the main emphasis of the Revival over the years on the spoken language, especially fostered by Oieghyn Gailckagh in an informal public house atmosphere (1970s).
2. The figures for those who write and read Manx, which would naturally overlap with some of those who speak it, and vice versa, would reflect those who have learned Manx in the more formal surroundings of the evening class.
3. Douglas, being the capital and largest settlement area, might be expected to, and does record the highest figures in all three columns. The high figures in Onchan and Braddan would be due to the fact that both areas adjoin, and serve as overspills for Douglas.

Table 2:
1. It is noticeable that the larger figures are found in the age-ranges 25 - 74. This would reflect the numbers who have learned Manx over the last 20 or so years, as part of the Third Phase of the Revival (Second World War to present; cf. Broderick 1992: 657-59).
2. Those in the age-ranges 5 - 14 would have learned their Manx, either in a Kinder-garten, or in a school where Manx was on offer (i.e. before the general inclusion of 1992 when Manx became available throughout the education system as a whole), or perhaps at home.
3. Those in the age-range of ca. 60+ would include those who had learned their Manx from the old native speakers.

Table 3:
1. As with Table 1, the largest figures are found among those who speak Manx, reflecting the main emphasis of the Revival.
2. As with Table 2, the largest numbers are found in the age-range 25 - 74, i.e. those forming part of the Revival over the past 20 or so years.
3. The figure 12 for those under 5 who reflect those few families who occasionally speak to their children in Manx at home, or those children who have learned some Manx in a Kindergarten.
4. The figures of 5 and 4 in the under 5 range would reflect those who perhaps can write their name, or read an write the odd sentence or rhyme.

Table 4:
1. As is to be expected, the main area of derivation or place of birth of Manx speakers outside the island is England, simply because England was and is the chief area of immigration of Manx people within the British Isles, and many of those whose place of birth is England would include many of Manx family and ethnicity. Much less so in the other areas.
2. In the other areas the numbers likely reflect interest in Manx by nationals from those areas, rather than persons of Manx extraction from the same. The high number from Ireland probably reflects those drawn into Man to service the finance sector.
3. The relatively high number from the Far East may reflect British ex-patriot interest in Manx, though interest in matters Celtic from Japan in general terms is not insignificant.


Table 5:
1. As is perhaps to be expected, the greatest number of speakers is to be found among those with expertise in craft, probably meaning traditional occupations, such as stone-walling, or manual occupations associated with the Revival.
2. The relatively high numbers in the first two aforementioned occupations would include teachers, among whom a knowledge of Manx is to be expected, but also those servicing the finance sector. The latter would include the figure of 44 for the clerical and secretarial occupations.
3. The mechanical and sales professions seem to attract the smallest numbers. Many native born Manx people find employment in this sector.

Conclusion

Although much active and worthwhile work and energy has been ploughed into promoting Manx and diffusing a knowledge of it for long years by societies, such as Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh, and the tireless efforts of a number of indivuals over a similar period, nevertheless, it is my view that the future of Manx must lie primarily with the Department of Education as a professional teaching body.
Since the introduction of Manx as an optional subject into the Island’s schools with the appointment in 1992 of a Manx Language Officer and two peripatetic school teachers the status of Manx within the public perception, now that it has official backing, has risen dramatically and is now becoming accepted as one of those things that happens, and its greater acceptability, or otherwise, within the Manx community will determine its future progress within the Manx education system. Although the Dept. of Education’s efforts in this respect may serve the interests of the Revival, promoting the Revival is not the Dept’s business. Its function is to ensure that those taking Manx are given a sound grounding in the subject, just as those are who opt for French or German, or any other subject.

I understand that work is now in progress with producing a GCSE, and that an ‘A’-Level course in Manx is in prospect. Given the realities of the Manx situation as outlined above, the literary tradition has to be allotted a significant role in the whole process, if a sound knowledge of Manx among those who study it at school is to be guaranteed. This will especially need to be the case for Advanced Level where a deep and substantial understanding of the subject is required.

Though an enjoyment of Manx today may be associated with good earthy songs and catchy Manx tunes in Wednesday or Saturday night music sessions in local bars, nevertheless the future of Manx and its acceptability within the community in my view must lie primarily with the school system and ultimately with the children themselves. It is they who will determine whether they wish to speak or use Manx or not in the future, not us. Our job is to make certain that the best possible provision is made in materials and manpower for the development of Manx as a credible subject of study at school, to ensure that the children are not at all disadvantaged in acquiring a sound knowledge of Chengey ny Mayrey Ellan Vannin.

Bibliography

BALL, Martin (ed.) with James Fife, 1992. The Celtic Languages. London/New York: Routledge.
BARRY, Michael V. 1984. ‘Manx English’. In: Trudgill (ed.) 1984: 167-177.
BRENZINGER, Matthias (ed.), 1992. Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with References to East Africa. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language, ed. J. Fishman). Berlin/New York: Mouton-de Gruyter.
BRODERICK, George, 1981. ‘Manx Stories and Reminiscences of Ned Beg Hom Ruy’. ZCP 38: 113-178. Introduction and Texts.
---------- 1982. ‘Manx Stories and Reminiscences of Ned Beg Hom Ruy’. ZCP 39: 117-194. Translation and Notes.
---------- 1984/86. A Handbook of Late Spoken Manx. Vol. 1: Grammar and Texts, Vol. 2: Dictionary, Vol. 3: Phonology. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 3 vols. Buchreihe der ZCP, Bd. 3-5.
---------- 1991. ‘The Decline and Death of Manx Gaelic’ In: Ureland and Broderick (eds.) 1991: 63-125.
---------- 1992. ‘Revived Manx’: In: Ball (ed.): 654-60.
---------- (forthcoming 1). ‘Manx-English’. Proc. of the International Pilot Colloquium The Celtic Englishes (‘Englisch in den Keltischen Ländern’), Potsdam, 28-30 September 1995.
---------- (forthcoming 2). Language Death in the Isle of Man. Niemeyer: Tübingen.
CORUM C, SMITH-STARK, T C, WEISER, A, 1973. You take the high node and I’ll take the low node. Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.
DORIAN, Nancy C, 1973. ‘Grammatical Change in a Dying Dialect’. Language 49: 413-38.
---------- 1976. ‘Gender in a Terminal Gaelic Dialect’. Scottish Gaelic Studies 12: 279-82.
---------- 1977a. ‘A Hierarchy of Morphophonemic Decay in Scottish Gaelic Language Death: the Differential Failure of Lenition’. Word 28: 96-109.
---------- 1977b. ‘The Problem of the Semi-Speaker in Language Death’. In: Dressler and Wodak-Leodolter (eds.) 1977b: 23-32.
---------- 1978a. ‘The Preservation of the Vocative in a Dying Gaelic Dialect’. Scottish Gaelic Studies 13: 98-102.
---------- 1978b. ‘The Fate of Morphological Complexity in Language Death’. Language 54: 590-609.
---------- 1978c. East Sutherland Gaelic: the Dialect of Brora, Golspie, and Embo Fishing Communities. Dublin: DIAS.
---------- 1980a. ‘Linguistic Lag as an Ethnic Marker’. Language in Society 9: 33-41.
---------- 1980b. ‘Maintenance and Loss of Same-Meaning Structures in Language Death’. Word 31: 39-45.
---------- 1981a. ‘The Valuation of Gaelic by Different Mother Tongue Groups Resident in the Highlands’. Scottish gaelic Studies XIII (2): 169-82.
---------- 1981b. Language Death. The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia.
---------- 1982a. ‘Language Loss and Maintenance in Language Contact Situations’. In: Lambert and Freed (eds.) 1982: 44-59.
---------- 1982b. ‘Linguistic Models and Language Death Evidence’. In: Obler and Menn (eds.) 1982.
---------- 1983. ‘Natural Second Language Acquisition from the Perspective of the Study of Language Death’. In: Andersen (ed.) 1983.
---------- 1985. ‘Radical Asymmetries in the Skills of Speakers of Obsolescent Languages. Invited paper presented at the Centre for Franco-Ontarian Studies. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, May 1.
---------- 1986a. ‘Abrupt Transmission Failure in Obsolescing Languages: How sudden the ‘tip’ to the Dominant Language in Communities and Families?’ In: Nikiforidu, van Clay, Niepokuj, Feder (eds.) 1986.
---------- 1986b. ‘Making do with Less: Some Surprises along the Language Death Proficiency Continuum’. Applied Psycholinguistics 7: 257-76.
---------- 1989. Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge; University Press.
DRESSLER, Wolfgang, 1972a. ‘Allegroregeln rechtfertigen Lentoregeln. Sekundäre Phoneme des Bretonischen’. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 9: 9-10. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. English Summary: Fast Speech Rules Justify Slow Speech Rules.
---------- 1972b. ‘On the Phonology of Language Death’. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 448-57. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
---------- 1981. ‘Language Shift and Language Death - a Protean Challenge for the Linguist’. Folia Linguistica 15: 5-27.
DRESSLER, Wolfgang and WODAK-LEODOLTER, Ruth W. 1973. ‘Sprachbewahrung und Sprachtod in der Bretagne’. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 3: 45-58.

URELAND, P Sture & BRODERICK, George (eds.), 1991. Language Contact in the British Isles. Proc. of the Eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man, 1988. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

© George Broderick.
Universität Mannheim

Seminar für Allgemeine Linguistik
November 1996.

¹ not Semi-Speakers, since Manx was their first language and they were born before LTS was interrupted.

² For an overview of the Three Phases of the Manx Language Revival, cf. Broderick 1992: 654-60; for a more detailed description, cf. König 1996: 32-111.

#