How to revive the Irish language.

delthedriver · 13-08-2012 5:50pm

There seems to be confusion between Gaeilge which I was forced to learn for 13 years and sport or more specifically Gaa which I never played. It does not make me less Irish than anyone else. Yet on Sunday afternoons I am happy to watch hurling or Gaelic football on tv. What we are talking about is how to revive the Irish language. Is it worth reviving, without impinging on very valuable classroom time. During the Celtic tiger it became fashionable for people who detested Irish at school to send their offspring to the Gaelscoil. Indeed there was quite a revival in the irish language .Equally fashionable was the yummy mummy in her Range Rover dropping young Cian and his sister Sneachta off to Gaelscoil without a farewell, as Gaeilge. I really think that the usefulness of teaching Irish as a language died with the collapse of the Celtic tiger. It is time to move on and learn the languages which are going to help us out of the economic mess and secure the future of our young people. Irish will never die , there wil always be a number of people who will be interested in speaking and learning Irish, and I wish them well with this in the same way as a minority of people enjoy fishing as a hobby.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 5:51pm

Oh joy, it's this topic again :P

SocSocPol wrote: »

Much of the problem with Irish is a fear of it because it was badly taught at school, if that fear could be replaced with a sense of pride in the fact that we do have a national language, and a quite distinct one at that, revival could be so much easier to accomplish.

I'm picking on this part of this post cause, to me, it's a huge problem this topic suffers from.

Yes, people get annoyed by how badly it is taught in school, but I think that's only a minor problem in the grander scheme of things. The real major problem is that people don't see the point of the language. Sentimentality is the answer always given, but that's simply not enough for myself and others to justify the time and effort put into learning it.

Since I left school 7 years ago, I have never spoken a word of Irish. And my life has not suffered in any way because of that. I have not found myself unable to do something or communicate, nor have I met someone unable to communicate with me due to my inability to speak the language. So it's impossible to define the language, currently, as anything more than an optional language with very limited uses.

Yet this optionality is not reflected in the attitudes in schools or by those who argue it's importance; ask for a reason why we need it taught so obsessivly and the only answers back are ones of sentimentality; "It's our national language, the language of our ancestors, etc".

Worlds evolve. Societies grow. People drop unnessecary aspects of culture, especially in language. You're not going to revive a language that is for the most part unessecary unless you can provide a major reason why people should start studying it, and that reason has yet to be discovered by the pro-revival groups

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 5:55pm

My solution: everyone would learn Irish to a good conversational level that would allow them to speak fluently and read, say, An Béal Bocht.

Everyone who wishes to use the language would be aided to do so in every way possible.

It doesn't sound like a huge ask.

Jester252 · 13-08-2012 6:33pm

A language should be able to survive without life support.

LordSutch · 13-08-2012 6:41pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

My solution: everyone would learn Irish to a good conversational level that would allow them to speak fluently and read, say, An Béal Bocht.

Everyone who wishes to use the language would be aided to do so in every way possible.

It doesn't sound like a huge ask.

Indeed, and isnt this exactly what the authorities/education system has been striving for since the 1930s? yet it hasn't worked.

Enkidu · 13-08-2012 6:44pm

How to revive the Irish language?

If you like it, learn it. That's it, pick up a book and learn it. Much simpler than expecting other people and their children to learn it when they don't want to.

RandomName2 · 13-08-2012 6:56pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

It's fascist to want to preserve languages? Heavens, who knew!

A cultural-nationalist revival orchestrated by an authoritarian government which strips people of their citizenship if they either don't want to or are unable to meet the government's made-up criteria of Irishness.

Yup. Pretty damn fascist!

Edit: Forgot that the OP also wants people to be sent to concentration camps if they fail the set standard of Gaeilge! At least fascism is a refreshing change in After Hours I suppose.

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 7:01pm

Jester252 wrote: »

A language should be able to survive without life support.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1003/1224305144608.html

GaryIrv93 · 13-08-2012 7:28pm

Don't think most people actually want to see it cast out for good and forgotten, just to have less emphasis placed on it in our education system which the way I see it is already a joke enough as it is, and more emphasis placed on newer, more useful subjects like sciences. Less money to be wasted on it also, and to remove it as a compulsory subject, with an overhaul of how it's taught.

I'd say if the government actually cared about Irish, they would have reformed it's teaching and it's place in the education system years ago, but they haven't. I can't think of a worse way to keep a language alive than by forcing it on young kids especially when they're only starting to grasp English.

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 7:45pm

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Don't think most people actually want to see it cast out for good and forgotten, just to have less emphasis placed on it in our education system which the way I see it is already a joke enough as it is, and more emphasis placed on newer, more useful subjects like sciences..

If we really wanted to teach more useful subjects we'd tailor our education to the individual child, teaching the child what s/he's fascinated with - but with the crazy pursuit of 'points' and standardisation and competition, can't see that happening.

Interest in History · 13-08-2012 8:52pm

NoHarm1994 wrote: »

No disrespect to teachers was meant my only point was that if you dont have a teacher with a suitable standard themselves, it is very hard to grasp a language. QUOTE]

I accept what you say. But suppose you were being taught German by a teacher who had no opportunity to participate in a society using German? Suppose there were no such society in existence? What kind of German would you expect to acquire?

Just stand outside the whole Revival debate and ask: "what are the basic premises here?"

The Irish people have made it clear, progressively over the course of a couple of hundred years that they want to be part of a society that is larger than the island of Ireland. They see the English language as a key to that larger society. In 1922 and through to 1932, a bunch of toughs with revolvers set out to isolate the Irish people from the larger world and adopted the Revival of Irish as an instrument to achieve this. They failed, but to-day we are left with the detritus of the failure. Everybody knows all this, but the successors to those toughs can't afford to admit it.

Those toughs eventually ran our country into the ground with their own special amalgam of incompetence and corruption. But one thing they won't give up - they can't give up - is the Revival of Irish. This is because adherence to its symbolism is the mark of their legitimacy as the rulers of Ireland.

Seanchai · 13-08-2012 8:58pm

Interest in History wrote: »

In 1922 and through to 1932, a bunch of toughs with revolvers set out to isolate the Irish people from the larger world

Suffering Lord. Any more idiotic anti-Irish stereotypes from the British rightwing to throw in there?

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-08-2012 9:05pm

Very simply teach Irish the way linguaphone teaches you. 40 minutes a day for 6 months and you'll be fluent.

Fukc off teaching poems when no one can even speak Irish.

cristoir · 13-08-2012 9:12pm

It's time to except in this country that culture is not something that is forced on a nation. It develops and adapts over time. It can't be driven down a country's neck like Gaeilge is here. Virtually every citizen in this country is given 14 years of Irish teaching and yet so few of us are fluent. That is nothing short of a societal rejection of the language probably caused by a resentment of it's compulsory status. That might sound extreme but if students are coming out of schools with better French after 6 years than Irish after 14 there must be something to it.

Of course some will protest "it's just the way we teach the language that's flawed". Really? Most of us will undergo 14 years of Irish lessons for about 5 hours a week 9/10 months a year. Given that amount of time you should become highly knowledgeable at whatever the subject is even if it's thought through Morse code. I mean are we supposed to believe it is the fault of teaching that after roughly 3000 hours of lessons (a conservative estimate not including study or homework) spaced out over the years where our brains are supposed to most adapt for learning languages that still most of us come out of it with literally the cupla focal. Something deeper is at play.

We have tried the compulsory game and it's utterly failed. How about making it optional and letting parents, students and society decide the role we want the language to play in our nation. And to those who say it'll kill the language: If it takes government intervention to save something supposedly cultural then I'd question just how cultural it was in the first place.

Wibbs · 13-08-2012 9:15pm

cristoir wrote: »

Given that amount of time you should become highly knowledgeable at whatever the subject is even if it's thought through Morse code.

Funny enough I actually learned morse code as part of an after school ham radio club. No joke. By the time I left school I would have been more fluent at that than Irish. Kinda mad and kinda sad with it. Then again that was back in the dark ages. Still I would have imagined then that this far ahead things would have changed, but it seems you could mirror the attitudes towards the language of most of the people today. More Irish primary schools though.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 9:18pm

Seanchai wrote: »

Suffering Lord. Any more idiotic anti-Irish stereotypes from the British rightwing to throw in there?

I'm not saying I agree with the hyperbolic language used but I do agree with his point to an extent. It goes back to what I said earlier today; the reasons constantly given for wanting Irish to be "revived" are sentimental ones revolving around restoring our Irishness. "We have to keep the language alive cause its the language or our ancestors, it's our national language, it's who we are". These are points that, effectively, revolve around stating a desire to remain isolated from the larger world who do not speak a word of Irish.

Irish is not a language of progression; it's a language of recession and isolation.

Siuin · 13-08-2012 9:20pm

Best way to revive a language is to ban it.

IloveConverse · 13-08-2012 9:25pm

Focus on understanding/ speaking the language well, not on learning notes and paragraphs with the intention of regurgitating the Irish that you don't have a clue what half of it means, just for examinations.

Make it fun.

Education in schools of the language should be beneficial, not a weapon of mass destruction.

Scanlas The 2nd · 13-08-2012 9:27pm

cristoir wrote: »

It's time to except in this country that culture is not something that is forced on a nation. It develops and adapts over time. It can't be driven down a country's neck like Gaeilge is here. Virtually every citizen in this country is given 14 years of Irish teaching and yet so few of us are fluent. That is nothing short of a societal rejection of the language probably caused by a resentment of it's compulsory status. That might sound extreme but if students are coming out of schools with better French after 6 years than Irish after 14 there must be something to it.

Of course some will protest "it's just the way we teach the language that's flawed". Really? Most of us will undergo 14 years of Irish lessons for about 5 hours a week 9/10 months a year. Given that amount of time you should become highly knowledgeable at whatever the subject is even if it's thought through Morse code. I mean are we supposed to believe it is the fault of teaching that after roughly 3000 hours of lessons (a conservative estimate not including study or homework) spaced out over the years where our brains are supposed to most adapt for learning languages that still most of us come out of it with literally the cupla focal. Something deeper is at play.

We have tried the compulsory game and it's utterly failed. How about making it optional and letting parents, students and society decide the role we want the language to play in our nation. And to those who say it'll kill the language: If it takes government intervention to save something supposedly cultural then I'd question just how cultural it was in the first place.

It's most definitely how it's taught, it's insanely retarded how badly it's taught. That's it, simple as that.

Similarly we teach all languages really badly, how many people can speak French or German after finishing school?

Yet somehow they manage to do it in other countries.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 9:30pm

I suppose it's easier to just blame how it's taught rather than examine the other reasons people are offering to explain why the language is struggling...

IloveConverse · 13-08-2012 9:33pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I suppose it's easier to just blame how it's taught rather than examine the other reasons people are offering to explain why the language is struggling...

It's a big part of the problem... I agree with you though, there is a multitude of reasons for how it's failing as a language. Some of the posts on this are very well thought out, and communicated.

gobnaitolunacy · 13-08-2012 9:35pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough I actually learned morse code as part of an after school ham radio club. No joke. .

.-.. --- .-..

Cú Giobach · 13-08-2012 9:36pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with the hyperbolic language used but I do agree with his point to an extent. It goes back to what I said earlier today; the reasons constantly given for wanting Irish to be "revived" are sentimental ones revolving around restoring our Irishness. "We have to keep the language alive cause its the language or our ancestors, it's our national language, it's who we are". These are points that, effectively, revolve around stating a desire to remain isolated from the larger world who do not speak a word of Irish. Irish is not a language of progression; it's a language of recession and isolation.

So people who want to learn say French, are isolating themselves from the wider world of the billions of people who don't speak a word of French, same for <<insert any one of the world's languages here>> , very badly thought out crap.

GaryIrv93 · 13-08-2012 9:39pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

If we really wanted to teach more useful subjects we'd tailor our education to the individual child, teaching the child what s/he's fascinated with - but with the crazy pursuit of 'points' and standardisation and competition, can't see that happening.

+1. That's how a child gets educated - through independent, not forced learning, and being free to study whatever they take interest in. I could learn a hell of a lot more watching an hour of the Discovery Channel or a nature programme than the mostly useless and uninteresting sh*te thats taught in school. But with this country's system, the true purpose of learning and education has been hopelessly lost in the dull routine of SRP's, notes, preparation for exams, rote learning, studying points, and entry requirements, and it's getting worse every year. With a little effort, it can't be that hard to fix.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 9:45pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

So people who want to learn say French, are isolating themselves from the wider world of the billions of people who don't speak a word of French, same for <<insert any one of the world's languages here>> , very badly thought out crap.

Learning French would give you access to millions of people across numerous countries and cultures. According to Wikipedia, French is spoken by between 67 and 115 million people and is the official language of 29 countries. Thats only accounting for native speakers and official countries.

Irish is spoken by roughly 94,000 people and is the official language of one country (and even in that country, it isn't even spoken by the majority).

And those numbers have a bigger gap if we include the figures for people's second language...

Are you really that desperate in this argument that you'd try and say learning French would isolate you as much as learning Irish? There's a BIG difference between learning French and Irish, and you even know that. At least try and retain some sense of logic when posting.

Cú Giobach · 13-08-2012 9:59pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Learning French would give you access to millions of people across numerous countries and cultures. According to Wikipedia, French is spoken by between 67 and 115 million people and is the official language of 29 countries. Thats only accounting for native speakers and official countries.

Irish is spoken by roughly 94,000 people and is the official language of one country (and even in that country, it isn't even spoken by the majority).

What about the 6,885,000,000 people who don't speak French.
So you judge the worth of a language by the number of speakers it has, not by virtue of it being a language, surely since many more people speak Hindi then you should lambast people for learning French for the very same reasons you attack those learning Irish.
Your argument has no logical consistency.

Are you really that desperate in this argument that you'd try and say learning French would isolate you as much as learning Irish? There's a BIG difference between learning French and Irish, and you even know that. At least try and retain some sense of logic when posting.

Learning another language irrespective of what language that is does not isolate you from anyone, as believe it or not people can learn (wait for it) more than one and (yes you guessed it) they don't forget one they previously spoke by learning a second. There's something new for you.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 10:08pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What about the 6,885,000,000 people who don't speak French.
So you judge the worth of learning a language by the number of speakers it has, not by virtue of it being a language, surely since many more people speak Hindi then you should lambast people for learning French for the very same reasons you attack those learning Irish.
Your argument has no logical consistency.

Learning another language irrespective of what language that is does not isolate you from anyone, as believe it or not people can learn (wait for it) more than one and (yes you guessed it) they don't forget one they previously spoke by learning a second. There's something new for you.

Amazingly, you don't seem to be arguing the benefits of learning Irish as a second language here. You're arguing the fact that there's no point in learning a second language at all since it will only serve to isolate you from people who don't speak those languages. In which case, why bother learning a language at all?

I'd have thought the reasons for learning French (which is obviously just an example; sub out French for German, Chinese, Hindu, Klingon or whatever) was self-evident; you want to learn a second language which allows you to communicate and interact with the largest subsection of people possible. Learning Irish, if we ignore the sentimental reasons, only allows you to communicate with a very, VERY small portion of the human race (and it can be argued quite easily that the majority of those Irish speakers could simply be addressed in English and no communication problems would occur). Learning French would grant you the ability to communicate with many millions more people. And you're right, learning Hindu would allow you access to even more.

The logical consistency in my argument is quite plain really; people should speak the language that allows them to communicate with the most amount of people possible. Of course, personal preference should also come into play there as well. but primarily, language is a tool which we use to communicate, and spending such a majority of time on forcing people to speak Irish, with no option or choice in the matter, can be seen (and is seen) as a waste of time due to the limited compulsory uses the language has.

And you're right, people can learn more than two languages. But again, that's not a pro-Irish arguement; it can easily be said that it would be more fruitful to teach English and French (again, an example, sub out as nessecary) and then allow people intent on studying Irish to study IT as their third language. If people can learn a third language, then why does Irish get to be the second?

And to jump ahead here (cause I see it coming), if I'm being honest, I don't even think French (etc) should be a compulsory language for people to learn; parents (and later in life, students) should get to choose if they learn a second or third or forth language. That should be an optional choice since the majority of people will get through life using English and be perfectly content in doing so.

Jimoslimos · 13-08-2012 10:32pm

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Don't think most people actually want to see it cast out for good and forgotten, just to have less emphasis placed on it in our education system which the way I see it is already a joke enough as it is, and more emphasis placed on newer, more useful subjects like sciences. Less money to be wasted on it also, and to remove it as a compulsory subject, with an overhaul of how it's taught.

I detest this attitude where the only subjects worth teaching are those directly linked to further employment opportunities. Reeks of a desire to churn out little robots for multinational manufacturers here. Children should receive a broad grounding in a wide range of subjects, from arts, sciences, languages, etc up to JC level at least.

For those arguing that by teaching Irish, children are being deprived of learning a useful language: it doesn't quite work like that. Children are pretty amazing at being able to pick up multiple languages at an early age, and if they are having problems grasping a pretty basic language like Irish I can't imagine the same methods for teaching French, German, Mandarin, etc will be any more of a success. Plus the fact that kids at that age don't take a blind bit of notice that the language they are learning will be of economical benefit to them in the future.

It shouldn't be a choice of;
Irish or <insert foreign language>

rather
Irish AND <insert foreign language>

Learning a second language makes it much easier to pick up a third, and a fourth, etc.

Lord TSC · 13-08-2012 10:33pm

Surely it should be a choice of...

English AND <Personal choice>

It's a tad hypocritical to say you detest people forcing subjects on kids for one reason, but then do it yourself for another...

Cú Giobach · 13-08-2012 10:36pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Amazingly, you don't seem to be arguing the benefits of learning Irish as a second language here. You're arguing the fact that there's no point in learning a second language at all since it will only serve to isolate you from people who don't speak those languages. In which case, why bother learning a language at all?

I suppose me stating "Learning another language irrespective of what language that is does not isolate you from anyone" went over your head, sorry I didn't realise it was such a hard sentence to understand.
You are isolated from people by not speaking their language, you do not activly isolate yourself from more people by learning another, quite the contrary.

I'd have thought the reasons for learning French (which is obviously just an example; sub out French for German, Chinese, Hindu, Klingon or whatever) was self-evident; you want to learn a second language which allows you to communicate and interact with the largest subsection of people possible. Learning Irish, if we ignore the sentimental reasons, only allows you to communicate with a very, VERY small portion of the human race (and it can be argued quite easily that the majority of those Irish speakers could simply be addressed in English and no communication problems would occur). Learning French would grant you the ability to communicate with many millions more people. And you're right, learning Hindu would allow you access to even more.

The logical consistency in my argument is quite plain really; people should speak the language that allows them to communicate with the most amount of people possible. Of course, personal preference should also come into play there as well. but primarily, language is a tool which we use to communicate, and spending such a majority of time on forcing people to speak Irish, with no option or choice in the matter, can be seen (and is seen) as a waste of time due to the limited compulsory uses the language has.

I know you might find this hard to believe but there are more Irish speakers who I interact with regularly here in west Cork than speakers of Hindi.
I also doubt I will ever get the chance to speak to 600,000,000 people in my life, let alone just those that speak that language.

The speak to more people argument based on the number of worldwide speakers is ridiculous, as people learn languages as nesecary, and the number of worldwide speakers of a language is irrelevant compared to the actual people you will deal with in your life.
You say "The logical consistency in my argument is quite plain really; people should speak the language that allows them to communicate with the most amount of people possible " well, Learning a language spoken by 5 billion people is worthless if you have no reason to meet those people, and learning a language spoken by 500 is very worthwhile if you deal with those people every day. Get it?

And you're right, people can learn more than two languages. But again, that's not a pro-Irish arguement; it can easily be said that it would be more fruitful to teach English and French (again, an example, sub out as nessecary) and then allow people intent on studying Irish to study IT as their third language. If people can learn a third language, then why does Irish get to be the second?

And to jump ahead here (cause I see it coming), if I'm being honest, I don't even think French (etc) should be a compulsory language for people to learn; parents (and later in life, students) should get to choose if they learn a second or third or forth language. That should be an optional choice since the majority of people will get through life using English and be perfectly content in doing so.

I'm not arguing for the learning of any particular language, I'm pointing out the fallacies of your "number of speakers" and "isolationist" arguments, in the context of linguistics in general.

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments