How to revive the Irish language.

An Coilean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0/10

An Coilean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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

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

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.

An Coilean

LordSutch wrote: »

I see that you're as ascerbic 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.

I hope you don't mind me providing an answer to this question.

First of all, I think a more realistic target should be chosen, no matter what is done, and no matter how supportive the population in general is, a language shift on that scale is only feasible over a period of several generations.

For the porpuses of discussion, I think it best to limit ourselves to what can be achieved in a few generations at the outside.

In my own opinion, I think it is possible that over a peroid of 60-70 years 30-40% of the population could have a high level of fluency in the Language with perhaps half that using it regularly.

The main driver for this language aquisation will be the Gaelscoileanna. Over the next 20 years, assuming no major government led effort to expand the number of gaelscoileanna, they should have expanded to account for around 10% of Primary, and around 4-5% of secondary pupils.

Over the course of 60-70 years, this could easily be expanded to 20-25% and 10% respectively.

Even at that, a solid foundation for the revival has been built.
More significantly however is the effect this will have on revival efforts in other areas.
The second level Gaelcholaistí will not have enough places for leavers of primary Gaelscoileanna, so English medium secondary schools will have increasing numbers of former Gaelscoil pupils who are fluent in Irish.
Irish Societies and Clubs that in recent years have started to develop in English Medium secondary schools will expand as each new generation containing more Irish speakers than the last moves up through the schools. This will give the oppertunity to those who are interested in the language to become involved, and this is also true elsewhere.

Where as traditionally a given area might have had a hand full of active Irish speakers, with the growth of the Gaelscoil movement, the building material for vibrant Irish speaking communities exist. Of course this will not result in the creation of a vibrant Irish speaking community everywhere, but it will allow for them in many parts of the country.


The education system for all its faults dose teach the average pupil a lot of Irish, though students by and large do not reach conversational proficiency, the difference in time and effort required for them to learn Irish to fluency by comparrision to what it would take to learn it from scratch is significant. What is lacking is the oppertunity for those interested in learning Irish to use it, In many parts of the country there is very little oppertunity to use Irish.
The most important aspect of the revival movement is not the education system, but creating oppertunities for those who have Irish to use and maintain it, and for those interested in learning to do so.

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.

The education system, beyond primary school is not about teaching people practical everyday skills. You dont need to go to school to learn them, you learn them by using them in everyday life.
Education is about creating a well balanced, rational person with the ability to learn, in its very essence it is abstract.

Interest in History

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.

The first governments set out to achieve language shift by force. This came naturally to them, being accustomed to the applicatioon of force in political matters. This policy - the achievement of language shift - was a part of their resistence to the incorporation of Ireland in the United Kingdom which they saw as involving a culture war as well as the recently ended physical war. They saw Irish as a barrier to that incorporation and as Eoghan MacNeill, the first Minister for Education, made clear they wanted to achieve the isolation of 'their' new nation from England by having it speak a different language. He made that clear.

Theirs was was a crude and naive plan.

We live in a time when the extreme duress that those leaders used to advance their language plan is a thing of the past. It's end could probably be dated to 1973 when Dick Burke, the Fine Gael Minister for Education allowed that a Leaving Certificate could be had even by candidates who did not pass in Irish. Up to then they could get NO certificate.

The reason that I said that to-day we live with the detritus of the old plan is because our leaders still can't bear to make Irish a subject of choice in the Leaving Cert. They can't bear to give up this element of force in spite of its obvious futility. That's a residue of the old mentality.

This was all so crazy that describing it bluntly does indeed give the impression of caricature. But this is not my fault. See

Akenson, Donald Harman: A Mirror to Kathleens' Face (McGill-Queens University Press)
Tom Garvin: Preventing the Future (McGill & McMillan 2006)
Adrian Kelly: Compulsory Irish (Irish Academic Press 2002)
Prof John M Kelly: Education and the Irish State (google.com/site/failedrevival)
Kevin Williams - Studies, Summer 1989)
E.F. O'Doherty: Bilingual School Policy (Studies 1958)

Interest in History

Seanchai wrote: »

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.

Irish is the only subject that is legally enforced by Department regulation. All other subjects rely on the population of parents and students overwhelmingly wanting them.

It's a bit ironic that an advocte of learning Irish for its beauty and its enriching culture should scorn the poetry of Shakespeare as pointless.

Cú Giobach

Interest in History wrote: »

Irish is the only subject that is legally enforced by Department regulation. All other subjects rely on the population of parents and students overwhelmingly wanting them. .

Ah, Irish is compulsory because that is also what the people want.
Politicians tend to do things because of the votes that are in it for them, anyone who doesn't realise this must be very naive indeed, there is not much use in even being a politician in this society, unless you get votes.

Wibbs

Seanchai wrote: »

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

Beyond the "toughs with guns" comment, he has a point. At the foundation of the state there was an element of a cultural "year zero" to it. Not exactly uncommon in newly minted states. The near overnight rise in governmental influence of the Catholic church another example of this. It had effects throughout the culture. If it was seen as "English" it was frowned upon. It's one of the reasons that it's only relatively recently that the "Georgian Dublin" of the postcards was protected by planning laws. Look at our natural history museum. It's famous for being a museum of a museum and again because that was seen as somehow "English" so was pickled in aspic(as was a lot of science itself). It's amazing it even survived. Shít at one point there were even plans to flatten Dublins Merrion square because it was "un Irish" and erect a huge Catholic basilica in its place. As late as the 70's TD Kevin Boland accused people objecting to the destruction of old Dublin of being "belted earls". The Irish language(sadly) got caught up in all of that bullshít.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

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.

+1 it has to be taught as a foreign language, simply because for the vast majority of Irish people it is. This IMHO is one of the biggest reasons for it's failure. There was a cultural assumption it was our language so the teaching methods followed that and here we are today. And we'll still be in the same position in a generations time if that isn't admitted. I use the word admitted because I do see it as something to be admitted for many tasked with reviving the language.

An Coilean wrote: »

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.

There are precious few languages in the world today where this hasn't happened. Either they're the ones being phased out or they're the ones in ascendency. Why did Scots Gaelic linger on and Pictish die out? Economic and cultural pressures. In that case Irish influence.

Qualitymark wrote: »

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.

Very much so. That's one thing we definitely picked up from the English imperial mindset.

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.

Minus the knowing it as a toddler part QM ditto for me too. Irish equaled primitive, rural, isolationist, catholic and backward. Peig summed it up. Some old crone on the edge of the world with a nobel prize in whinging spouting bullshít that was as much revved up for 19th century cultural tourists looking for "pure celtic culture" as it was fact. Now if only we'd had An Béal Bocht by Brian O'Nolan on our syllabus, but that was and still is a little too close to the bone for many.

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.

+1000 and not just in languages either.

Qualitymark

Ficheall wrote: »

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.

Any 11- or 12-year-old I know does know what she or he wants to study - whether it's computer games, guitar playing, horse riding, reading, fishing or...

And teaching *anything* teaches what we really need to learn: the ability to learn, to stretch the intellect and/or the body, facility with research, stringency about results...

I'm not putting this very clearly. But let's say you've got a kid who's crazy about, say, photography and bored by the English-Irish-maths-history-and-science curriculum. It's absolutely possible to make that child an expert photographer who gets great pleasure from her skill, and at the same time pull in English, Irish, maths, history and science with projects using these subjects. And because they feed into the real love the child has for photography, she'll learn willingly and happily. And have a 'marketable' skill at the end of the year, if that's what is required by the educational system.

Next year maybe she's discovered computer games: again, at first this will mean hours of thumb damage, but then programming can come into it, writing a game using Irish history and Irish language, and a mathematical puzzle, plus the geography of a fantasy country between mountains and sea...

Education should be about lighting the fire of creativity and ability; at the moment it's too often a police action keeping order among huge classes of bored kids.

God be with the day when the road sign warning drivers to slow down for a school showed a flaming torch of knowledge.

Interest in History

An Coilean wrote: »

In my own opinion, I think it is possible that over a peroid of 60-70 years 30-40% of the population could have a high level of fluency in the Language with perhaps half that using it regularly.

The main driver for this language aquisation will be the Gaelscoileanna. Over the next 20 years, assuming no major government led effort to expand the number of gaelscoileanna, they should have expanded to account for around 10% of Primary, and around 4-5% of secondary pupils.

QUOTE]

The data on past schemes should be looked at here. I think that in 1960 27% (?) of the primary schools were all-Irish - the 'A' schools. Very intense efforts were made by governments in the past and these should be studied to see what can be learned from their experience.

My guess is that the present shape of things will persist in the long run. A certain number of gaoilsceallanna catering for a special interest section of society in a limited arena of activities. A certain number of state jobs directed towards those with Irish. Politicians paying lip-service in a detached sort of way and following the maxim of passing by a sleeping dog without kicking it.

Will Ruairi Quinn's interest in literacy problems lead to a re-allocation of school hours away from Irish? Will the new Gaeltacht Act have the effect reducing the area of recognised Gaeltacht? Would that matter in terms of the morale of the language movement? It's hard to distinguish movement in these matters as it occurs with glacial slowness.

Ficheall

Qualitymark wrote: »

Any 11- or 12-year-old I know does know what she or he wants to study - whether it's computer games, guitar playing, horse riding, reading, fishing or...

You'll grant, though, that bringing kids horse riding or fishing, for example, would be rather difficult, due both to budgetary, supervision, administrative constraints?

Qualitymark wrote: »

And teaching *anything* teaches what we really need to learn: the ability to learn, to stretch the intellect and/or the body, facility with research, stringency about results...

...which is what a lot of people don't grasp is a significant benefit of learning Irish. They complain that it is useless, but it is not. (Assuming it were taught correctly, but I think that may have been mentioned elsewhere before...)

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm not putting this very clearly. But let's say you've got a kid who's crazy about, say, photography and bored by the English-Irish-maths-history-and-science curriculum. It's absolutely possible to make that child an expert photographer who gets great pleasure from her skill, and at the same time pull in English, Irish, maths, history and science with projects using these subjects. And because they feed into the real love the child has for photography, she'll learn willingly and happily. And have a 'marketable' skill at the end of the year, if that's what is required by the educational system.

imgur and Facebook, eat your heart out, eh? How many photographers does the country need?

Qualitymark wrote: »

Next year maybe she's discovered computer games: again, at first this will mean hours of thumb damage, but then programming can come into it, writing a game using Irish history and Irish language, and a mathematical puzzle, plus the geography of a fantasy country between mountains and sea...

And once they've hit 13 - how many people do we need studying pornography? Some direction is needed.

Lord TSC

I'm going to tie all this back in to the initial question of how Irish can be revived.

First off, I wouldn't use the word "revive" or any iteration of it; it suggests the language is already dead, which is a bad admission straight off the bat.

Next, ask what the purpose of the Irish language is. Language, primarily, is about communicating, and learning a second language is about being able to communicate with people your first language does not enable you to do so with. This was my original point. However Irish does not really work within this definition of language, as the vast majority of people who speak Irish also speak English. A revival of the Irish language cannot be based on the idea that it is needed or that it is a compulsory tool needed in society, despite the fact that seems to be the way it is handled by those wanting it to be taught to people.

I'll take a stab at what I think the purpose of Irish is; it's all about cultural identity and social unity. It makes SOME people feel more Irish or more part of the Irish society. But that means it is completely optional in society as well. The Irish language, as I mentioned yesterday and has not been refuted at all, is entirely sentimental in its existence now, kept alive by people who see it as a key aspect of their Irishness. In other words, the language, in order to thrive, needs passion and enthusiasm, as it needs people to voluntarily accept it.

Instead, the language is a compulsory part of our education system for 14 years. It is forced upon everyone, both people who are passionate and want to learn it and people who see no useful purpose, and in the process, a culture of resentment is bred in a lot of people. There seems to be a myth that if it was just taught right, everyone would develop the passion and the language would discover a revival. That's simply not true.

In my opinion, and this is simply my opinion, Irish needs to be aimed primarily at those who are passionate about it, and the pro-revival people need to simply give up on forcing those who see no purpose in the language from learning it. By making it optional in school, you give the people who want to learn it the ability to learn it without the fear of the subject and language being tainted by those who are resentful of the fact they have to learn it. Perhaps then, as those who want to learn it develop a stronger passion for it, they can work on those who are not interested in trying to show them the benefits of learning it.

In short, to revive the language, you need to fight the culture of resentment that compulsory Irish in schools as brought on. You cannot do that by simply changing HOW it is forced on people (with a curriculum change, for instance) but rather stop forcing it on people and letting those who want to learn it (the passionate, the enthusiastic) learn if of their own accord. Focus first of all on getting a small portion of the country speaking it well and then spread out slowly and methodically, instead of employing the whole-sale, scatter shot approach that is currently being used.

Qualitymark

Teamshadowclan, in my youth the same debate was raging over the teaching of Latin.

"If you get rid of compulsory Latin, schools will still offer it for those who value it" was the mantra.

Latin was taken off the core curriculum and within a breath it disappeared from 99% of all schools - much to the detriment of the understanding of grammar and history and derivation in all languages, much to the disastrous detriment of language learning.