The Irish language is failing.

Aineoil

Thanks Boardsie for mentioning Richard Burke. I never knew about him or that he had tried to implement an Irish studies course akin to a classical

studies course for Latin and Greek.

Here's a link to a very interesting article.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-heavy-political-burden-of-the-irish-language-revival-1.105242

Aineoil

Grayson wrote: »

Thanks for the help

I know there are grants to set up businesses in the west but they're more about getting businesses into a area that's facing depopulation issues. Not really about Irish.

BTW, I googled the plural and the first two pages were Irish results

Copy and paste the Irish and post it up on this thread. I'll translate it for you.

I'll send you the bill.:D

briany

Aineoil wrote: »

Thanks Boardsie for mentioning Richard Burke. I never knew about him or that he had tried to implement an Irish studies course akin to a classical

studies course for Latin and Greek.

Here's a link to a very interesting article.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-heavy-political-burden-of-the-irish-language-revival-1.105242

For some reason, when I click on the link, I get linked to an article about some guy called Glen Dimplex. Just a problem on my end?

An Ciarraioch

briany wrote: »

For some reason, when I click on the link, I get linked to an article about some guy called Glen Dimplex. Just a problem on my end?

No, that's what I was getting too, the archive is a paid sub, so maybe Aineoil has, and hence why we aren't seeing it.

Aineoil

briany wrote: »

For some reason, when I click on the link, I get linked to an article about some guy called Glen Dimplex. Just a problem on my end?

Weird but the internet can do funny things.

I googled Richard Burke " Irish Language" 1973

It was the fourth hit.

Hope this helps.:)

Aineoil

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

No, that's what I was getting too, the archive is a paid sub, so maybe Aineoil has, and hence why we aren't seeing it.

No it's not paid as far as I know.

Aineoil

It was my fault. I didn't copy correctly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-heavy-political-burden-of-the-irish-language-revival-1.1052422

Should work now.

It does. Sorry about that.

Grayson

Aineoil wrote: »

It was my fault. I didn't copy correctly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-heavy-political-burden-of-the-irish-language-revival-1.1052422

Should work now.

It does. Sorry about that.

From 2002. Not much has changed

Aineoil

Grayson wrote: »

From 2002. Not much has changed

Being totally honest with you here's how I think things have panned out over the years I have been alive.

We obviously did Irish at school but I have only a memory of it in 3rd and 5th class when I was praised for being good at it. I think I remember it because I got praise.

The 1970's were pretty scarce on praising children. (The then curriculum was introduced in 1971)

The teaching of Irish was mostly didactic in those days - rote learning was the
mode of the day. It worked for me but as people have posted it wasn't a model for them.

Fast forward a few years and the revised curriculum was introduced in 2000.

It advocated speaking Irish in a conversational way. It removed reading the language to a later age in schools where the medium of instruction was primarily in English.

The 2000 curriculum was very aspiring but it's failing . Why?

Total lack of interest. Middle class parents just want a result in Irish. They couldn't give two hoots about Irish.

How do I know? I teach their children.

We told our 17 year old son that Irish wasn't important. Coming from a father who's a native speaker and me as fluent - that a big message.

Hebrew and Welsh were recreated. But in all honesty I can't see people wanting to recreate Irish.

Don't get me wrong, I love Irish. I loved Latin too.


I don't want to de-rail the thread, but many children left primary school in the 70's and 80's without basic literacy in Englishh

briany

Aineoil wrote: »

Being totally honest with you here's how I think things have panned out over the years I have been alive.

We obviously did Irish at school but I have only a memory of it in 3rd and 5th class when I was praised for being good at it. I think I remember it because I got praise.

The 1970's were pretty scarce on praising children. (The then curriculum was introduced in 1971)

The teaching of Irish was mostly didactic in those days - rote learning was the
mode of the day. It worked for me but as people have posted it wasn't a model for them.

Fast forward a few years and the revised curriculum was introduced in 2000.

It advocated speaking Irish in a conversational way. It removed reading the language to a later age in schools where the medium of instruction was primarily in English.

The 2000 curriculum was very aspiring but it's failing . Why?

Total lack of interest. Middle class parents just want a result in Irish. They couldn't give two hoots about Irish.

How do I know? I teach their children.

We told our 17 year old son that Irish wasn't important. Coming from a father who's a native speaker and me as fluent - that a big message.

Hebrew and Welsh were recreated. But in all honesty I can't see people wanting to recreate Irish.

Don't get me wrong, I love Irish. I loved Latin too.


I don't want to de-rail the thread, but many children left primary school in the 70's and 80's without basic literacy in Englishh

I think the message of (almost) nobody cares about Irish has been sorely obvious for about 100 years, if not more.

Hebrew was recreated out of necessity for various reasons and Welsh never really disappeared as a day to day language. I think the fact is that there never really has been a language revival on the scale that Conradh na Gaeilge might hope for with Irish. In Europe, there's a few languages that have "won" and every other one is declining and belongs to a minority of speakers. In a global connected world that trend will only continue, I think. In the past, peoples and communities were separated, and so different languages, dialects and accents abounded, but now, as the need to communicate with a diverse range of people increases, linguistic diversity is less and less the case. Think of it this way - you don't see the natural emergence of new languages reported in the press. The divides seem to have already been pretty much classified.

The stigma of Irish is still strong, as well. The association with Irish is still a language obsessed with its past rather than its future. A language that seems to lack a distinct lexicon for modern 21st things, instead having Gaelicizations of English words. Besides that, there'll always be the thing of people need a tangible reason to do something. They'll never do something because its a nice idea. People, as a rule, don't act until it directly affects them. If you could ever push Irish with this thought in mind, you might make a difference, but how to make it directly relevant to people without imposing some really backward, draconian measure on wider society I do not know.

johnny osbourne

beidh sí allright

irishlad12345

i think irish people are almost afraid to speak it in public or to embarrassed for example i was on the train last year and my irish orals where the next day so my grinds teacher would ring me and talk to me in irish to help get me ready for the oral. the amount of people staring at me made me uncomfortable so i had to end the call

irishlad12345

irishlad12345 wrote: »

i think irish people are almost afraid to speak it in public or to embarrassed for example i was on the train last year and my irish orals where the next day so my grinds teacher would ring me and talk to me in irish to help get me ready for the oral. the amount of people staring at me made me uncomfortable so i had to end the call

That is one of the reasons that Irish is failing, do you know what those people were thinking? It could be that they were listening intently to try to remember the Irish they learnt in school, or WTF language is he speaking!

My Irish is limited and I have tried and had similar experiences as well.
But have also had someone once explain that there were a couple of IT engineers who decided do discuss the benefits of OSPF over RIP and they switched to Irish (for the craic) and found that several other people in the office were listening intently (out of curiosity).

The bottom line is don't be ashamed to be heard speaking Irish! this is probably what kills the language in the first place.

jackofalltrades

Deleted User wrote: »

It could be that they were listening intently to try to remember the Irish they learnt in school...

This is how I am when I hear a conversation in Irish.
I'm not being noisy, it's more that I'm trying to gauge how much Irish I still remember.

Iwasfrozen

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This is how I am when I hear a conversation in Irish.
I'm not being noisy, it's more that I'm trying to gauge how much Irish I still remember.

In my twenty something years living here I've only ever heard one person speak Irish outside school and it was over the phone.

irishlad12345

to be fair a lady next to me said it was amazing to hear someone speaking irish out of the blue but this is the first language of the state it shouldn't be amazing it should be a common occurrence. this has to be one of the only countries in the world where speaking the first language is seen as unique.

Dan_Solo

irishlad12345 wrote: »

to be fair a lady next to me said it was amazing to hear someone speaking irish out of the blue but this is the first language of the state it shouldn't be amazing it should be a common occurrence. this has to be one of the only countries in the world where speaking the first language is seen as unique.

Yes it's ridiculous. It obviously isn't and shouldn't be considered our first language at all.

Dan_Solo

johnny osbourne wrote: »

beidh sí allright

B'fheidir go bhfuil. B'fheidir go won't.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

irishlad12345 wrote: »

this has to be one of the only countries in the world where speaking the first language is seen as unique.

The ONLY official language of South Sudan is English yet very few speak it.

The official language of Mali (IIRC) is French but only about 10% of the population speak it

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

But you were arguing earlier that lack of utility could not be used as an argument against compulsory Irish on the basis that it was not taught for reasons of utility but nostalgia.

Now you are arguing that teaching Irish for reasons of nostalgia is a problem.

The first sentence is correct - the way we have inherited Irish and its learning is because of nostalgia in my opinion but that is also the problem... because nostalgia has resulted in the current approach to teaching Irish which assumes a degree of fluency which is non-existent for the vast majority these days.

Irish in a more realistic format should be mandatory in my opinion because it is a national language.

If you have a philosophy of education which is grounded on utility or complete freedom of subject choice then of course you won't agree!

Dughorm

Zen65 wrote: »

How? Where?

Why?

irishlad12345 wrote:

i think irish people are almost afraid to speak it in public or to embarrassed for example i was on the train last year and my irish orals where the next day so my grinds teacher would ring me and talk to me in irish to help get me ready for the oral. the amount of people staring at me made me uncomfortable so i had to end the call

Is is possible the Irish language is becoming the last taboo of 21st century Ireland?!

I think speaking Irish is a bit like going for a run, without practice and training, you will be left red-faced and out of breath in a few minutes!

Where do you go for a run? - wherever you like!
How? By using your reserves!
Why? Because it feels natural

Now, why do we have an educational approach to Irish where people don't feel natural speaking Irish after 13 years learning it, have no reserves of vocabulary and feel that they can't speak it anywhere, be it in a shop or a train or anywhere in everyday life!

boardise

The reference to Official languages in South Sudan and Mali raises a false comparison of the type we constantly and dishonestly get from Gaeilgeoir.
The thing about these countries is that they are full of localised tribal languages.
Point 1-It would be difficult/impossible to get one accepted over the others as the official language.
Point 2-None of them are sufficiently developed to function as an official language anyway.
Point3- The official languages chosen are highly developed languages with international spread-ideal for the purpose as a sophisticated tool which also bestows prestige.

(Remember the purpose of an OFFICIAL language is to enable important business to be conveniently transacted in matters of government , law ,administration ,commerce etc. It must be a standard so that comprehension is maximised and time is not wasted in interpreting different dialect usages and ambiguities and misunderstandings are minimised.)

Now -will someone please point out the comparability between those cases with the set-up in Ireland ?

LordSutch

Dughorm wrote: »

Now, why do we have an educational approach to Irish where people don't feel natural speaking Irish after 13 years learning it, have no reserves of vocabulary and feel that they can't speak it anywhere, be it in a shop or a train or anywhere in everyday life!

Why indeed, and why has it been this way since the introduction of Irish into our schools in the 1920s ?

Why do we not learn Irish (in any meaningful way), and why do we refuse to speak it?

Answer; Irish as a spoken language (for the Irish people at large) has been dwindling since about the 1850s, with every generation since, witnessing a decline in the speaking of the language. So the status quo demands that we all learn Irish in school, that it remains our official 1st language, and that it remains a core subject/ a mandatory subject from junior infants right up to leaving cert.

. . . yet 90%+ of students who come out he other end still can't hold any meaningful conversations with friends or family in Irish because friends and family don't speak Irish either!

How many more decades are we going to fool ourselves (and the EU) that Irish is our 1st language?

Another year, another decade, another generation, and people still refuse to speak it.

Grayson

Dughorm wrote: »

The first sentence is correct - the way we have inherited Irish and its learning is because of nostalgia in my opinion but that is also the problem... because nostalgia has resulted in the current approach to teaching Irish which assumes a degree of fluency which is non-existent for the vast majority these days.

Irish in a more realistic format should be mandatory in my opinion because it is a national language.

If you have a philosophy of education which is grounded on utility or complete freedom of subject choice then of course you won't agree!

It's only a national language because it's written into the constitution. If it were removed from there it wouldn't be a national language.

And if we teach children with no regard for practicality then we are wasting their education. We might as well throw in compulsory hurling and gaelic lessons.

dlouth15

Dughorm wrote: »

The first sentence is correct - the way we have inherited Irish and its learning is because of nostalgia in my opinion but that is also the problem... because nostalgia has resulted in the current approach to teaching Irish which assumes a degree of fluency which is non-existent for the vast majority these days.

Irish in a more realistic format should be mandatory in my opinion because it is a national language.

If you have a philosophy of education which is grounded on utility or complete freedom of subject choice then of course you won't agree!

I don't think the use of "philosophy of education" is helpful in this discussion. It seems to me more a way of avoiding justification of ones position. So if someone argues that it would be beneficial to make some change, you can always say, "well that is because of your philosophy of education. My philosophy of education says otherwise..."

This is more like the religious way of thinking where some people expect their beliefs to be respected for no reason other than because the beliefs are part of their religion.

Dughorm

Grayson wrote: »

It's only a national language because it's written into the constitution. If it were removed from there it wouldn't be a national language.

I would say it is the opposite - it is written into the constitution because it is a national language. Our national anthem is not written into the constitution and yet it is still out national anthem.

Grayson wrote: »

And if we teach children with no regard for practicality then we are wasting their education. We might as well throw in compulsory hurling and gaelic lessons.

Who's advocating that extreme position? Total straw man!

Dughorm

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't think the use of "philosophy of education" is helpful in this discussion. It seems to me more a way of avoiding justification of ones position. So if someone argues that it would be beneficial to make some change, you can always say, "well that is because of your philosophy of education. My philosophy of education says otherwise..."

This is more like the religious way of thinking where some people expect their beliefs to be respected for no reason other than because the beliefs are part of their religion.

I don't believe people if they claim they don't have a "philosophy of education" because it is this philosophy which is driving this whole discussion - your philosophy of education answers the question "what is education supposed to be?"

Can you define what is a "religious way of thinking" ? It sounds like a pejorative term! :pac:

Grayson

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't think the use of "philosophy of education" is helpful in this discussion. It seems to me more a way of avoiding justification of ones position. So if someone argues that it would be beneficial to make some change, you can always say, "well that is because of your philosophy of education. My philosophy of education says otherwise..."

This is more like the religious way of thinking where some people expect their beliefs to be respected for no reason other than because the beliefs are part of their religion.

There is something called the philosophy of education. Like all philosophy it's based on a logical rational approach.
The problem with the word philosophy is that people use the word philosophy to describe a personal belief system. What compounds the situation is that you'll find educational institutions using the word philosophy in the same way.

Philosophy isn't like that. It's a series of rational arguments.

This is a nice article about it and I'd recommend that anyone who wants a brief overview should read it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/

dlouth15

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't believe people if they claim they don't have a "philosophy of education" because it is this philosophy which is driving this whole discussion - your philosophy of education answers the question "what is education supposed to be?"

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a philosophy of education as such, but using it in argument in this way is not helpful. If you are going to push an educational policy based on your philosophy of education whatever that might be, then you can't use the mere fact that it is your philosophy as justification.

What is the rational basis of Irish as a compulsory subject to leaving cert? If you can't answer this without reference to your particular philosophy of education, then why is yours superior to others?

dlouth15

Grayson wrote: »

There is something called the philosophy of education. Like all philosophy it's based on a logical rational approach.
The problem with the word philosophy is that people use the word philosophy to describe a personal belief system. What compounds the situation is that you'll find educational institutions using the word philosophy in the same way.

Philosophy isn't like that. It's a series of rational arguments.

This is a nice article about it and I'd recommend that anyone who wants a brief overview should read it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/

There's always been two meanings of the word philosophy and I'm fine with both of them. The more informal meaning of having a particular philosophy on a particular topic is fine but is really only a way of saying that you have a particular opinion on something, an opinion that still needs to be justified.