British languages versus migrant languages

Cavehill Red

I've been looking at the linguistic data from the UK census that was released yesterday (you may have seen the headlines about Polish being England's second language in various British newspapers.)
Here's some comparisons I found:

Only 58 people in England and Wales speak Scottish Gaelic, a mere 33 speak Manx Gaelic, 557 speak Cornish, 1,559 speak Irish, and 516 speak other indigenous British gaelic languages (I don't know what that refers to and am happy to be informed.)
That number totals to fewer than speak Maltese.

Add in 'Scots' speakers and British gypsy speakers (?) and you still don't have as many people as speak Lingala, a language spoken primarily in the Northwestern Congo.

Include the 8,000 or so Welsh speakers in England and you have a total of only 13,000 people in England and Wales who speak languages from these islands other than English (or Welsh in Wales), still fewer than those who speak Telegu, a language spoken primarily in only one Indian state.

And then there were those headline figures: 546,000 speak Polish. 4.2 million people in England and Wales do not speak English or Welsh as their main language, and 180,000 cannot speak it at all.

So, the mass immigration permitted by the current and previous British governments has not only led to significant numbers of British residents speaking all manner of global tongues, it has also led to the virtual death of indigenous languages other than English (or Welsh in Wales.)

Or am I being an hysterical racist here? Opinions?

Cookie_Monster

Language evolves, changes and dies. I don't see the particular need to be worried about it or protect languages that are all but dead like Manx or Cornish. Interesting that of all those minorities Irish is the highest you've listed, I'd love to know if those 1,600 actually can speak Irish, we do tend to exaggerate a wee bit on that.

The real concern there is the 180k people who live there yet cannot speak English, you would think at the very least they'd have it as a requirement for a VISA (ok, so can't for intra EU but the RoW should)

Cavehill Red

I suppose what I'd lament is the terminal decline of these linguistic elements of British culture, given the rhetoric that mass immigration leads to multicultural enrichment.
That may well be the case. But the multicultural enrichment in Britain's case apparently doesn't extend to its indigenous minority cultures. I mean, in what sense is it an improvement to generate a linguistic culture from a remote part of the Congo, while indigenous cultural languages die out?

Peregrinus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So, the mass immigration permitted by the current and previous British governments has not only led to significant numbers of British residents speaking all manner of global tongues, it has also led to the virtual death of indigenous languages other than English (or Welsh in Wales.)

Or am I being an hysterical racist here? Opinions?

I don't see why you think mass immigration has anything to do with the decline of indigenous British languages.

In the first place, neither Scots Gaelic nor Irish nor Manx are indigenous to England and Wales. In the second place, both these languages plus Cornish declined drastically in England and Wales before polyglot immigration; what squeezed them out was not Lingala or Telegu, but English.

Victor

Care to provide a link?

I wouldn't necessarily call you racist, but I'll be generous and use the word 'unthinking'.

How do you honestly think that the presence of African or Asian communities (mostly in the big cities) prevents people from learning or speaking minority indigenous languages, typically* in rural areas?

Note that a further 562,016 people living in Wales speak Welsh. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-data-cube-pivot-table.xls


* I would actually suspect a lot of the Manx, Irish, Scots Gaelic and Welsh speakers actually live in larger cities.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The real concern there is the 180k people who live there yet cannot speak English, you would think at the very least they'd have it as a requirement for a VISA (ok, so can't for intra EU but the RoW should)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muteness would account for perhaps 50,000, as would certain cases of deafness, where the person's only language may be a version of sign language.

dlofnep

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd love to know if those 1,600 actually can speak Irish, we do tend to exaggerate a wee bit on that.

Lot's of young people from the Gaeltacht emigrate to England, and have done so for decades. I doubt it's an exaggeration.

As for the OP: You're treating Britain as a single entity. It isn't. It is a land mass, consisting of different countries with different cultures.

The majority of Scottish Gaelic Speakers live on the western isles in Scotland. The majority of Welsh speakers live in north Wales. Manx as a language almost died and is only recently being revived over the past 10 - 20 years. I'd hardly expect to find many of their speakers in England.

I think there is an issue however with integration from a handful of communities who have a poor command of the English language, and seem content to operate through their mother tongue - even operating their businesses through them. I find this disrespectful to the host nation. Integration is extremely important. While in contrast, other communities are more than keen to improve their English and operate through English.

Victor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And then there were those headline figures: 546,000 speak Polish. 4.2 million people in England and Wales do not speak English or Welsh as their main language, and 180,000 cannot speak it at all.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/census-reveals-more-about-the-way-we-live-and-work-in-england---wales/census-results-reveal-more-about-the-way-we-live-and-work-in-england---wales.html

138,000 people could not speak English (less than 0.5 per cent of all residents).

Perhaps there are 42,000 who can only speak Welsh?

Cavehill Red

Victor wrote: »

Care to provide a link?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286348
Table QS204EW is the one with the detailed language data.

Victor wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily call you racist, but I'll be generous and use the word 'unthinking'.

I wouldn't necessarily call you kneejerk, but it's difficult to conclude that I'm unthinking when I've been poring over raw data tables from the ONS and examining it for trends and interesting comparisons. You may disagree with the direction of my thinking, but I'd have thought it's clear that I am certainly thinking.

Victor wrote: »

How do you honestly think that the presence of African or Asian communities (mostly in the big cities) prevents people from learning or speaking minority indigenous languages, typically* in rural areas?

To offer some potential explanations:
By diverting resources to provision of foreign language services in such communities;
By diverting teaching resources to provision of English teachers to these communities
By eroding the base of urban interest in indigenous languages

Victor wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muteness would account for perhaps 50,000, as would certain cases of deafness, where the person's only language may be a version of sign language.

Not so. Sign language is included in the data sets, and even apportioned according to which sign language (English, etc).

Peregrinus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

To offer some potential explanations:
By diverting resources to provision of foreign language services in such communities;
By diverting teaching resources to provision of English teachers to these communities
By eroding the base of urban interest in indigenous languages.

Again, I think you may be positing a false opposition here. I don't think it's the case that resources were diverted from indigenous minority languages to foreign languages, simply because little or no resources were being provided to the indigenous languages in the first place. Resources are provided to foreign-language communities because there are foreign-language communities; the indigenous-language communities in England and (Welsh language excepted) Wales declined to insignficance long before the foreign-language communities arrived.

The competition here is not between indigenous and exotic langauges; it is - and always has been - between a monoglot English culture and a linguistically diverse one. Users and supporters of the indigenous languages should welcome the provision of resources to minority languages, because it strengthens the case for, and increases the likelihood of, resources being provided to minority celtic languages if a demand for those resources can be demonstrated.

The challenge is to demonstrate the demand. Telegu gets resources that Manx doesn't not because it is exotic rather than indigenous - Manx is exotic, not indigenous, in England - but because a lot of Telegu speakers have moved to England, while very few Manx speakers have.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not so. Sign language is included in the data sets, and even apportioned according to which sign language (English, etc).

Yes, but in a different table. So the 22,000 or so people whose main language is a sign language may also appear in the 138,000 people who do not speak English. And a further slice of the 138,000 may be accounted for by people who do not speak English due to a physical or learning difficulty which has also prevented them from acquiring sign language.

Cavehill Red

Your definition of what's 'exotic' in England and Wales is not mine. People have spoken gaelic languages in those areas for centuries, if not millennia.
Telegu and Lingala, not so much.
I'd also query, in the context of an economic downturn which has seen places like Newcastle cut their entire arts budget and where cultural provision is being eroded daily, whether it is of benefit to the case of indigenous languages that scarce provision is directed towards services in tongues like Lingala or Telegu, defended on the basis of human rights rather than the (perceived to be) weaker argument in favour of cultural preservation.

Peregrinus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Your definition of what's 'exotic' in England and Wales is not mine. People have spoken gaelic languages in those areas for centuries, if not millennia.
Telegu and Lingala, not so much.

Don’t be silly. Languages like Manx and Irish Gaelic are clearly not indigenous to England. They are indigenous to Man and Ireland respectively. To the extent that they have been spoken in England, it has been within immigrant communities. (Much like Telegu, come to think of it - except that the Telegu-speaking community in England today is vastly larger than the Manx-speaking community ever was at any time.) To the extent that they have ceased to be spoken in England, it’s been because those communities have been absorbed into the cultural Anglophone mainstream, as will likely happen in time with Telegu speakers.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd also query, in the context of an economic downturn which has seen places like Newcastle cut their entire arts budget and where cultural provision is being eroded daily, whether it is of benefit to the case of indigenous languages that scarce provision is directed towards services in tongues like Lingala or Telegu, defended on the basis of human rights rather than the (perceived to be) weaker argument in favour of cultural preservation.

You undermine your own case, I think. If you see devoting resources to Manx, etc as a matter of cultural preservation, then you’re competing for those resources with other claims on arts and culture budgets - libraries, opera, public arts. The resources devoted to, say, providing local government services through Telegu to Telegu-speakers don’t come from arts and culture budgets.

I accept that arts and culture budgets in England may be squeezed in the current climate, and may need to be defended. But there is no reason at all why they should be seen as squeezed by human rights considerations which create expenditure pressures in other areas, any more than by, say, pressures for spending on health or public transport or prisons.

In your initial post you express a concern that you might be seen as “a hysterical racist”. I think if there is such a danger, it arises from your assumption that there is a fundamental opposition between public support for minority celtic languages versus public support for other minority languages, and that support for one is somehow at the cost of the other. I just don’t see that this is so, either as a matter of principle or in practice.

Cavehill Red

No, I didn't express any such concern. I simply pre-empted the sort of hysterical response you appear to be on the verge of delivering.

Peregrinus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I didn't express any such concern . . .

Sure you did. In your very first post you said:

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Or am I being an hysterical racist here? Opinions?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

. . . I simply pre-empted the sort of hysterical response you appear to be on the verge of delivering.

Keen to acquire victim status, are we? You’re the person who raised the issue of “hysterical racism” in relation to your own views, and when both Victor (“I wouldn’t necessarily call you racist”) and I attempted to bring the language down a notch or two you have displayed considerable irritation with us.

You’re trailing your coat, Cavehill. I’m sorry to disappoint your fond expectations, but that’s as hysterical as my response is going to get.

getz

there are many languages spoken in the UK,just because a person speaks say polish or manx doesent meen they cannot speak english,remember even french is considered a native language in parts of the UK,of cause it is expensive to have to employ bilingual teachers,and helpers in those non english speaking communities,but we have to except the fact that it is the way the world is going,like it or not ,

Iwasfrozen

Language and culture shift and evolve over time, people have to stop thinking it's the governments job to protect minority languages no one want to speak.

Leftist

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've been looking at the linguistic data from the UK census that was released yesterday (you may have seen the headlines about Polish being England's second language in various British newspapers.)
Here's some comparisons I found:

Only 58 people in England and Wales speak Scottish Gaelic, a mere 33 speak Manx Gaelic, 557 speak Cornish, 1,559 speak Irish, and 516 speak other indigenous British gaelic languages (I don't know what that refers to and am happy to be informed.)
That number totals to fewer than speak Maltese.

Add in 'Scots' speakers and British gypsy speakers (?) and you still don't have as many people as speak Lingala, a language spoken primarily in the Northwestern Congo.

Include the 8,000 or so Welsh speakers in England and you have a total of only 13,000 people in England and Wales who speak languages from these islands other than English (or Welsh in Wales), still fewer than those who speak Telegu, a language spoken primarily in only one Indian state.

And then there were those headline figures: 546,000 speak Polish. 4.2 million people in England and Wales do not speak English or Welsh as their main language, and 180,000 cannot speak it at all.

So, the mass immigration permitted by the current and previous British governments has not only led to significant numbers of British residents speaking all manner of global tongues, it has also led to the virtual death of indigenous languages other than English (or Welsh in Wales.)


Or am I being an hysterical racist here? Opinions?

Not hysterical at all, I am shocked that there are such low numbers of people speaking manx and irish in england. Especially shocked that these two upstanding languages have been silenced by the first language of a country with a populalation of 40million.

but what takes the biscuit is the 0.3% of the population who can't speak english. When will the pc brigade end their madness?

Victor

Leftist wrote: »

Not hysterical at all, I am shocked that there are such low numbers of people speaking manx and irish in england. Especially shocked that these two upstanding languages have been silenced by the first language of a country with a populalation of 40million.

To call Manx 'upstanding' is disingenuous when there were only 20 Manx speakers in 1946 http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/mnh/education/factfiles/manxlang.pdf and 2 in the 1960s. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/manx.htm

Nevertheless, neither Manx nor Irish is indigenous to England.

Surely you should be more outrage that English has silenced indigenous languages in the Isle of Man, Ireland and many other parts of the world.

Leftist wrote: »

but what takes the biscuit is the 0.3% of the population who can't speak english.

I used to know an elderly Italian couple living with their daughter and grandson in Dublin. The daughter spoke excellent English, but the couple couldn't speak English more than simple greetings and the grandson (about age 4, a bit of a brat ) I suspect simple chose not to speak English or had limited English.

I am sure there will be many similar arrangements in England and Wales.

Leftist

Victor wrote: »

I used to know an elderly Italian couple living with their daughter and grandson in Dublin. The daughter spoke excellent English, but the couple couldn't speak English more than simple greetings and the grandson (about age 4, a bit of a brat ) I suspect simple chose not to speak English or had limited English.

I am sure there will be many similar arrangements in England and Wales.

and big whoop if they do, it's their handicap if they don't speak the language.
Personally I know what it's like to live in a country and not speak the language, it's actually fan-tastic. So peaceful.

At the end of the day native english speaking people are very intolerant of other languages and there's no reason to be. Look at Germany, I've never met a German who can't speak English.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've been looking at the linguistic data from the UK census that was released yesterday (you may have seen the headlines about Polish being England's second language in various British newspapers.)
Here's some comparisons I found:

Only 58 people in England and Wales speak Scottish Gaelic, a mere 33 speak Manx Gaelic, 557 speak Cornish, 1,559 speak Irish, and 516 speak other indigenous British gaelic languages (I don't know what that refers to and am happy to be informed.)
That number totals to fewer than speak Maltese.

Add in 'Scots' speakers and British gypsy speakers (?) and you still don't have as many people as speak Lingala, a language spoken primarily in the Northwestern Congo.

Include the 8,000 or so Welsh speakers in England and you have a total of only 13,000 people in England and Wales who speak languages from these islands other than English (or Welsh in Wales), still fewer than those who speak Telegu, a language spoken primarily in only one Indian state.

And then there were those headline figures: 546,000 speak Polish. 4.2 million people in England and Wales do not speak English or Welsh as their main language, and 180,000 cannot speak it at all.

So, the mass immigration permitted by the current and previous British governments has not only led to significant numbers of British residents speaking all manner of global tongues, it has also led to the virtual death of indigenous languages other than English (or Welsh in Wales.)

Or am I being an hysterical racist here? Opinions?

Given the complete lack of historical context or comparison here to the state of these languages before "mass immigration", the best that can be said is that this is an appalling example of misused statistics, and the worst that it's racist trolling.

Neither is impressive, and neither is a good use of forum space.

moderately,
Scofflaw