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.

An Coilean · 13-08-2012 10:45pm

Interest in History wrote: »

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.

A bunch of toughs with revolvers - said the man from the daily mail. Seriously you have to realise how ridiculous this sounds?

You set out language shift as a consious decision, it is not, far from it in fact, it is driven by and large by economic factors and by its relative status to another language. Both of which forced, yes Forced English on the Irish population over a period of several generations between 1700 and 1850.

Ireland was not isolated from the world when it was an Irish speaking nation, far from it, and small nations in Europe that maintain their own language are in no way isolated because of it.

However, I digress, your laughable caricature of Irish history suggests that any kind of nuanced argument will fall on deaf ears.

cristoir · 13-08-2012 10:51pm

An Coilean wrote: »

A bunch of toughs with revolvers - said the man from the daily mail. Seriously you have to realise how ridiculous this sounds?

You set out language shift as a consious decision, it is not, far from it in fact, it is driven by and large by economic factors and by its relative status to another language. Both of which forced, yes Forced English on the Irish population over a period of several generations between 1700 and 1850.

Ireland was not isolated from the world when it was an Irish speaking nation, far from it, and small nations in Europe that maintain their own language are in no way isolated because of it.

However, I digress, your laughable caricature of Irish history suggests that any kind of nuanced argument will fall on deaf ears.

But yet the status quo in schools is forced Irish. Why is it any more acceptable?

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 10:58pm

cristoir wrote: »

But yet the status quo in schools is forced Irish. Why is it any more acceptable?

The status quo in schools is forced every subject!

If schools offered children inspiring teaching in subjects that fascinated them we wouldn't be talking about forcing anything on children.

By the way, I'd like to mention that in the course of my progress through 10 schools, I grew to hate one subject with an increasing passion. I still can't reliably tot up a row of figures. I blame the forced teaching, lack of inspiration and unwillingness to go at the pace of each child for my terror and hatred of mathematics. Or rather, of arithmetic; I was fine with algebra and geometry when they arrived.

Jimoslimos · 13-08-2012 11:02pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

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...

I was speaking from the point of English as a first language and then Irish second, but since you mention it I guess you would be equally happy if it was,

Irish AND <Personal choice>

Personal choice not necessarily meaning English.

Also "personal choice" is a bit of a misnomer here, children rarely choose what second language they wish to learn. School/Parental choice would be more apt, although the two are usually in conflict. Child learns Irish in school - parent shows disdain for Irish at home. No wonder it's a failure

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 11:06pm

A question we should be asking here is how to inspire our teachers to learn Irish, use it, and teach it in a way to inspire the children they teach.
The Gaelscoileanna seem to be doing this successfully - so why haven't the teachers in other schools been able to follow suit?

RandomName2 · 13-08-2012 11:10pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

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

You know, somehow I don't think the foundation of Israel is an example that is analogous with Ireland, nor one that we would like to emulate!

Post-Shoah immigration to newly founded state with lots of people from different backgrounds, all speaking different languages, who are brought together in the melting pot of the Hebrew language, and set up for over half-a-century of conflict with the Palestinians.

Read the other day that one of the reasons that one of the reasons that Ireland is lagging behind other countries in the field of science is due to the fact that during the 20s and 30s labs were ripped out of schools, and time dedicated to teaching science reduced, to make more space for the teaching of Irish. Dunno how accurate that was, or how relevant it is to today, but it is true that too much of the focus on Irish has been based upon nationalism.

An Coilean · 13-08-2012 11:16pm

cristoir wrote: »

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.

3000 hours is not a concervative estimate, its actually an exageration by more than a factor of 2.

The average pupil going to an English Language School will have about 1200 hours of Class time in Irish between Junior Infants and their Leaving Cert.
Now, Research in Canada into second language learning has come to the conclusion that fluency in a language requires 5000+ hours of study. Only a basic level of ability in a language can be achieved in 1300+ hours. The average Irish pupil will not even reach that in school.
So it seams that Irish kids learn about as much Irish you can reasonably expect them to in school.
The curriculum is delivering just about as much as can be expected of it, the problem is people expect the education system to churn out fluent Irish speakers, and then go looking for 'deeper reasons' when it fails to.

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.

Society did decide what role it plays in our nation, no politition worth his salt would support compulsory Irish if not doing so would earn them votes.

The real question however is, what has compulsion failed to do? Churn out fluent Irish speakers? As explained above, that was never on the cards.

Say it was compulsory to jump a mile wide ravine with a pogo stick.
When everyone fails to do so, you might say compulsion has failed, I would say the pogo stick was'nt up to the job in the first place.

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.

Im sure you would, but then again, every Irish athlete that won a medal at the Olympics recieved funding from the Government, so did they really win a medal at all?
I mean, if it takes government intervention for them to win a medal, did they really deserve one in the first place?

StevieC460 · 13-08-2012 11:19pm

0/10

An Coilean · 13-08-2012 11:26pm

cristoir wrote: »

But yet the status quo in schools is forced Irish. Why is it any more acceptable?

The way English was forced on Ireland from 1700 (and long before) - 1850 really bears no comparrision to compulsory Irish in schools today.

Compulsion is a fact of every education system in the world, It would be almost impossible to offer choice for every subject, from the start of education to the end, and even if it were possible, there is nothing to suggest that doing so would be beneficial to the childs educational outcome.

In short compulsion is with us to stay, and there is no logical reason to view compulsory Irish as less acceptable than compulsory anything else.

Qualitymark · 13-08-2012 11:29pm

But it's true that many - not all, certainly, but a lot of - students leave school after studying Irish every week of their lives, and they're unable to speak the language and have barely a conception of its cultural resonance.

Mind you, this is true of all language teaching in Ireland - it's truly embarrassing to wander from country to country in Europe and meet people who have flawless, if limited, English, plus usually two other European languages, whereas Irish people almost universally are monolingual in English.

My own experience of Irish: I so disliked the Catholic/nationalist outlook of those who were pushing the language when I was in school (pioneer-pin-wearing hypocrites), that I resisted learning it properly, despite having spoken Irish before English as a toddler.

I left school, and over the years developed a real resentment of these swines who had stolen my language and all that it meant in terms of culture from me. (For instance, I came across the term 'cothrom na Féinne' for 'equality', and realised that this was a reference to the Fianna whose stories I'd loved as a child). Eventually I went back to take some classes, and after 12 weeks of intensive classes, three hours a night for three nights a week was able to hold a conversation and read a book.

The fact that typically Irish teachers can't bring their students to the same level of fluency in 12 years - in Irish, in French, in German, in Italian, in a lot of cases even in English - would be funny if it weren't tragic.

An Coilean · 13-08-2012 11:32pm

Anyway.

The fact remains, that whether of not you believe compulsion is the problem.

The education system is not, and never will revive the Irish Language on its own.
So the question becomes, how can it be revived? I for one certainly don't share the OP's desire to set up cumbersom mechanisms for the state to force Irish on people, in my opinion such would be, unrealistic, undesirable, ineffective and unnecessary to achieve the goal.

Seanchai · 13-08-2012 11:45pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

A question we should be asking here is how to inspire our teachers to learn Irish, use it, and teach it in a way to inspire the children they teach.
The Gaelscoileanna seem to be doing this successfully - so why haven't the teachers in other schools been able to follow suit?

For starters, there's a singular lack of in-service methodology classes. One a year, if you're lucky. There is absolutely no support for teachers who want to spend their summer immersed in the language. There are, as far as I could make out, no support systems in place for any teachers of Irish who want to improve their teaching in their own time over the 3 months summer break. This is the sort of change which would greatly improve the standard of Irish teaching in classrooms.

In defence, generally speaking all languages are badly taught in schools. The number of teachers of English in particular who do not have a grasp of the basic grammar of that language is consistently astonishing. There are no excuses for it. It's not as if a native speaker of English getting a degree in English is as hard an intellectual feat as getting a degree in Maths, Irish, French or the like. They can familiarise themselves with their subject knowledge much quicker, as it's all in their native language so they should be great teachers with all that spare time they can devote to teaching methodology. Alas, because they chose English for their degree, they probably hadn't much of a work ethic to begin with. So they waffle their way through an entire career as a (bad) teacher of English.

Seanchai · 13-08-2012 11:57pm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

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

That's quite an impressive combination of ignorance and prejudice. Quality.

GaryIrv93 · 13-08-2012 11:57pm

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.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather have been taught subjects that at least have a good chance of coming in useful to me in the future, not one's that I know won't, unless I took a personal interest in it. Irish wasn't any one of those things, so I don't see how it was fair to be forced to learn it. Definitley, kids should be given a broad range of subjects, but at the same time they should also have more freedom of choice subjectwise. If I prefer mathematical, IT, and scientific related subjects, and don't want to learn arts, languages etc, then I shouldn't have to, and vice versa. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's the kid's education at the end of the day, for his/her own benefit and should have all the freedom to choose the available subjects.

For those arguing that by teaching Irish, children are being deprived of learning a useful language...

But they're forced to learn Irish, whether or not if it's irrelevant to them, even if they see some other subject or language more useful or appealing. They're not given a choice in the matter. So in a sense it is depriving them of learning something else that might be a bit more useful.

Seanchai · 14-08-2012 12:02am

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

But they're forced to learn Irish.... They're not given a choice in the matter.

Em, students are "forced" to learn every subject in school, including English and Maths up to the day they leave school. That includes all sorts of pointless things that the average student will never use after school, like Shakespearian poetry or calculus.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 14-08-2012 12:08am

lufties wrote: »

its an integral part of our heritage that we need to preserve,

The Roman Catholic church is a huge part of our heritage too, but mass attendance isn't mandatory. Maybe it should be.

Ficheall · 14-08-2012 12:21am

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

It's the kid's education at the end of the day, for his/her own benefit and should have all the freedom to choose the available subjects.

You're giving an awful lot of credit to these 11 and 12 year olds. I'm 25 and I'm still not sure what I want to study.

An Coilean · 14-08-2012 12:22am

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Don't know about you, but I'd rather have been taught subjects that at least have a good chance of coming in useful to me in the future, not one's that I know won't, unless I took a personal interest in it.

Name one LC subject that has any chance, never mind a good chance of comming in usefull in the future if you dont go on to further education or look for a job in that subject area, either of which definatly counts as taking a personal interest in it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 14-08-2012 12:58am

An Coilean wrote: »

Name one LC subject that has any chance, never mind a good chance of comming in usefull in the future if you dont go on to further education or look for a job in that subject area, either of which definatly counts as taking a personal interest in it.

Very true. The entire LC system needs to be overhauled and given a far more practical tone ot it. Not this cultural, natlaionist crap that is brainwashed into kids.

LordSutch · 14-08-2012 1:10am

Seanchai wrote: »

That's quite an impressive combination of ignorance and prejudice. Quality.

I see that you're as acerbic as ever with the put downs Senchai^ thankfully that one wasn't aimed at me.

Now before you you mount your Uber Gaelic steed and put me down too for being Anti-Irish (like you normally do), I would honestly like to know from you 'A self proclaimed Irish school teacher & cheer leader for the Irish language'' How would you propose to properly revive the Irish language in such a way that has not been acheived since independence from "The Empire" as you normally call it. How would you revive the language so that it is spoken and loved by all (lets say 70% of the population). I say again that a whole new approach should be looked at, from its mandatory teaching in primary school, to its mandatory teaching after the Inter Cert, which I think could realistically be addressed, giving students a language choice instead of the old failed mantra "You must do Irish right through to the leaving Cert" > what say you Seanchai.

And please try and be civil to me for once.

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments