Using Intergenerational Transmission as a New Marker of Irish-Language Shift, 1851-1891
Nicholas Wolf
New York University
ACIS Mid-Atlantic, 2019
Unresolved Questions about 19th c. Language Shift
- How long did shift really take?
- 3 generations, e.g. monoglot Ir, bilingual, monoglot E
- "like the snow off the ditches": Charles McGlinchey (1861-1954) of Co. Donegal, The Last of the Name
- All-island shift: 800+ years, still incomplete
- Cos. Kerry, Galway, Donegal, e.g.: 300 years, incomplete
- Was rate of shift uniform, or did it differ by region?
Unresolved Questions about 19th c. Language Shift
- Did features of 19th c. Irish society accelerate or hinder shift?
- Mass mortality? Mass emigration? Seán de Fréine, "An Gorta agus an Ghaeilge" (1995), regarding Famine as cause of shift: "Ach níl de bhunús ag an teoiric seo ach an méid seo, gur tharla na rudaí seo de bharr an Ghorta de bhrí gur tharla siad i ndiaidh an Ghorta. Is léir gur falsa an cineál réasúnaíochta seo." Famine not cause, but accelerant
- Rural depletion (in favor of city growth)?
Unresolved Questions about 19th c. Language Shift
- What role did the centralization of administration (however incomplete) and of curriculum (very complete) of the education system impact language survival?
- Maureen Wall (1969): jettison O'Connell-National Schools-Church as language-shift cause "catechism"
Unresolved Questions about 19th c. Language Shift
- How was shift experienced differently by gender?
- Females as sociolinguistic innovators (drive shift), e.g. via "need to modernize"?
- ... or males as sociolinguistic innovators , e.g. role as public actors?
- How did local community structure, occupational structure affect shift?
- "Market-oriented" local economies and shift?
- Farming/nonfarming divides?
Need for More Empirical, Less Anecdotal
- The marvels of the 1851-1891 Irish censuses and the question of language--a quick history of language measurement on censuses:
- 1846, Belgium (nonstandard in how question asked)
- 1860, Switzerland
- 1880, Austria & Finland
- 1881, India and Scotland
- 1890, United States
- 1891, Wales
- Micheál Ó Gliasáin, Ceist na Teanga sa Daoinaireamh/The Language Question in the Census of Population (1996)
Limitations of Irish Census, 1851-1891
- Undercounts
- Destruction of original returns in WWI
- Changing spatial granularity, limited variables of published tables (gender, location, bi/monolingualism)
Affordances of Irish Census, 1851-1891
Garret FitzGerald (1984, 2003), G.B. Adams (1975, 1979)
- Treat counts returns for each census year as a minimum count
- Focus on 1851-1881 censuses, and especially 1881, because of the move of language question out of footnote in 1881, helping to mitigate undercount
- Harmonize language data given in baronial spatial units with age cohort data given at PLU-Registrars/Dispensary District level (=education/health divide)
Affordances of Irish Census, 1851-1891
Garret FitzGerald (1984, 2003), G.B. Adams (1975, 1979)
- Spatial harmonization no small feat!
Affordances of Irish Census, 1851-1891
Garret FitzGerald (1984, 2003), G.B. Adams (1975, 1979)
- Spatial harmonization no small feat!
Disadvantages of Adams/FitzGerald Approach
- Lose longitudinal analysis ability
- Possibly requires too much apportionment of RDs across baronial borders
- Not much discussion of gender
New Approach: Parish-Barony and Age Structure Analysis
- Substitute Parish Age-Level information (available in literacy tables at less-granular age cohort sizes) for RD-based approach
- Potentially less need to apportion (Co. Clare, for example, has only one parish that crosses a baronial boundary)
- Lose some age granularity (0-19 years, 20-39, and 40 up) in harmonizing across census years, but potential gain in spatial precision.
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
- Double-key entry of all age/literacy tables (55% complete); double-key entry of language tables with help of QUB project from early 2000s.
- Focus on 1851/1871/1891 to enable 20-year age cohort longitudinal inspection (newborns to 19 year olds in 1851 become 20 to 39 year olds in 1871, etc.)
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
- Eliminate problem of undercounting by abandoning comparison of number of Irish speakers to number of English speakers
- Instead, compare the proportion of overall Irish-speaking population under 20 to the proportion of overall population under 20; disproportionately low shares of under-20 indicates weakening of Irish speaking
- Advantages: universally comparable (even outside of Ireland, e.g. Wales 1891)
- Key assumption: undercounts are unbiased with regard to age
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
1851 Females, Munster, Differences in Share of Population of Age 0-19 Cohorts
(Irish-speaking versus Population Overall)
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
1871 Females, Munster, Differences in Share of Population of Age 0-19 Cohorts
(Irish-speaking versus Population Overall)
New Approach: Pilot of Munster
1891 Females, Munster, Differences in Share of Population of Age 0-19 Cohorts
(Irish-speaking versus Population Overall)
Test 1: Correlation with Population Depletion, 1841-1851? (No...)
Blue = Females
Red = Males
Using Intergenerational Transmission as a New Marker of Irish-Language Shift, 1851-1891 Nicholas Wolf New York University ACIS Mid-Atlantic, 2019
Using Intergenerational Transmission as a New Marker of Irish-Language Shift, 1851-1891
By Nicholas Wolf
Using Intergenerational Transmission as a New Marker of Irish-Language Shift, 1851-1891
ACIS Mid-Atlantic 2019
- 1,085
