How to revive the Irish language.

LordSutch wrote: »

Well that isnt going to happen (killing off the Irish language), and killing it off wouldnt help anyone either. But what would be nice would be a re-evaluation of how irish is taught in our schools, and should it be mandatory for all, from Primary school right up to leaving Cert ???

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

As to the privately published survey, it's a matter of correctly attributing it so that no undue weight is given to it.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Again, I believe it would be to our betterment economically and culturally if we became a multi-lingual country,

I quite agree, but should Irish be the second language? Why not Russian or Mandarin? After all, when times were tough in the past, our Irish-speaking ancestors applied themselves to learning the most economically advantageous language of the time - English.

oldmangrub wrote: »

The tally stick was used by priests and educators rather than parents. I can't verify links but there's a lot on google....

At the end of the day, they would be punished according to how many notches they had on their stick.

True the priests and educators marked the sticks, What it does not say is who did the punishing. It seems to me that we want to blame others rather than ourselves for what happened.

Too often in the Irish language debate, distasteful facts are avoided.

The best way to kill Irish is to force people to speak it.

speedboatchase

Kill it with fire

opti0nal wrote: »

As to the privately published survey, it's a matter of correctly attributing it so that no undue weight is given to it.

I did correctly attribute it. Everyone knows NUIM is a third level institution and not an independent public body.

opti0nal wrote: »

I quite agree, but should Irish be the second language? Why not Russian or Mandarin?

Well that's the problem. We don't have the resources and we don't have enough teachers with any grounding in Russian or Mandarin. It seems impossible to me. How would it work? Also, the demand for Irish outweighs the demand for Russian or Mandarin however unwise you consider this to be. There is also already a large Irish-speaking community in Ireland, however irrelevant you consider them.
Irish is the most sensible option as well as the only plausible one imo.

opti0nal wrote: »

After all, when times were tough in the past, our Irish-speaking ancestors applied themselves to learning the most economically advantageous language of the time - English.

Times aren't that tough. We're not being persecuted. Our ancestors embraced English so wholly because they were in a desperate situation. This does not mean that they wanted to abandon Irish. We're in a position where we can make choices and it's to be expected that post-independence our decisions change in light of the new choices we have.

opti0nal wrote: »

True the priests and educators marked the sticks, What it does not say is who did the punishing. It seems to me that we want to blame others rather than ourselves for what happened.

Too often in the Irish language debate, distasteful facts are avoided.

Some parents were supportive of the beatings because they wanted their kids to get a "good, English-speaking education." Priests and educators did punish in relation to the tally stick. It is probably not stated explicitly in the link you looked at because it's obvious.

What other distasteful facts are you referring to?

opti0nal wrote: »

The best way to kill Irish is to force people to speak it.

Well it didn't do English any harm, did it?

I'm joking of course. But that's not the same thing, because you can't compare keeping Irish as a core subject in primary teaching with "forcing people to speak it." Or comparisons between those in favour of keeping Irish compulsory at LC with same. A bit sensationalist there.

An Coilean wrote: »

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

Best for the student or best for the language?

I would imagine the only way to bring Mandarin into the education system at Primary level would be to import 5-10,000 or so Chinese language teachers and assign at least one per school.

Given the poor quality of irish teaching in most primary schools there's no way you could trust Irish teachers to try and impart Mandarin (or any other foreign language) on a large scale.

Of course one could argue this ties in with general poor level of teaching Irish, most primary teachers don't have particulary good Irish. They are jack of all trades after all. Best option would be that primary schools had dedicated teachers who were specialists in a particular field. Off the top of my head I can think of:

Irish
Foreign language
Computer's / Science

Assign one of each to a primary school, divide up their working day so that each teaching period they have is with a different class.

Aside from that there's also the fact that elements in Dept of Education are actively acting against the spread of Gaelscoileanna/Gaelcholáistí. I know there have been at least one study which put the percentage of parents who would like their children to attend Irish medium education at 25%. Given that there is about 500,000 children in primary school this would point to a demand for up to 125,000 places in Gaelscoileanna. Currently there is about 31,000 students in Gaelscoileanna.

oldmangrub wrote: »

I did correctly attribute it. Everyone knows NUIM is a third level institution and not an independent public body.

I beg to differ. It's a private publication. Also of interest would be to know who funded it?

oldmangrub wrote: »

the demand for Irish outweighs the demand for Russian or Mandarin

It's an artificial demand supported by expectations of jobs created by the Official Languages Act.

oldmangrub wrote: »

thowever unwise you consider this to be. There is also already a large Irish-speaking community in Ireland, however irrelevant you consider them.

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?

oldmangrub wrote: »

Irish is the most sensible option as well as the only plausible one imo.

Yet you give no reason for this opinion other than it being cheaper and more practical to teach than Russian or Mandarin.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Times aren't that tough. We're not being persecuted. Our ancestors embraced English so wholly because they were in a desperate situation. This does not mean that they wanted to abandon Irish.

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

oldmangrub wrote: »

It is probably not stated explicitly in the link you looked at because it's obvious.

That's the link you gave.

oldmangrub wrote: »

What other distasteful facts are you referring to?

That we're an English-speaking society, that our ancestors chose to speak English and made their children do so. That Irish will never replace English as our common language. That the people who 'support' Irish don't actually want to speak it themselves.

oldmangrub wrote: »

because you can't compare keeping Irish as a core subject in primary teaching with "forcing people to speak it."

Another distasteful fact dodged. You can't learn a compulsory subject like Irish without being forced to speak it.

Language is a tool of a functioning society, not a hobby.

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?.

Going on Census 2011 there is a table asking about languages other then English or Irish used as a Home language. The top 10 were:

Polish = 119,526
French = 56,430
Lithuanian = 31,635
German = 27,342
Russian = 22,446
Spanish = 21,640
Romanian = 20,625
Chinese = 15,166
Latvian = 12,996
Portuguese = 11,902

Regarding Irish the relevant stats are to do with usage outside of Education system. The break down as:

Daily: 77,185
Weekly: 110,642

That gives a language community of 187,827 who at least use Irish on a regular basis during a week in a non-educational situation. Even if we exclude the speakers who at lest use it on weekly basis you are still looking at 77,185 daily speakers using it as a home language. This figure actually increased by 11% between 2006 and 2011. The population as a total increased by 8.2% during this period. So a minimum we can say that the daily language community is at least keeping stable with the growth in population.

Cú Giobach

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours..

Ahh, the true colours show again.
Seeing things as if there is a great rift between the two.
I'm pretty sure Irish speakers are quite relevant to their non-Irish speaking friends and relatives too, and vice versa.

Obair a thugann Saoirse. You could have that on the gates of your proposed ghettos in nice Gaelic lettering.

opti0nal wrote: »

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

These are economically difficult times, hardly desperate. Certainly nothing akin to a million people dying of starvation and another million forced to emigrate for fear of same.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Best for the student or best for the language?

Best available option, there are many factors to consider, educational outcomes and cost being to the fore amongst them.

Now before you go on some crusade trying to claim that by not making what is best for the student the only relevant factor, I am somehow trying to force Irish on everyone regardless of the price everyone else has to pay.

What is best for the student is not the only relevant factor, Giving every student their own private tutor in what ever subject they like from an endless list of options might be what is best for the student, but no one would claim that that is a realistic prospect, and as such, though it might be what is best for the student, it is not the best available option. Hopefully that is clear enough.

So, if in the event of a re-evaluation of the position of Irish in the Education system, it was found that the best available option was to keep Irish as a compulsory subject, would you accept that?

babymanval

paullyons00 wrote: »

In my opinion, the only way we can possibly revive the Irish language to make it the first language of the people, business and pleasure, is as follows:

All citizens below the age of 30 and above the age of 17 have 5 years to reach an agreed level of fluency.

Each will be assessed through an oral and written exam at the end of those 5 years.

If the candidate does not pass on his/her first exam, they will be given a second chance to pass but at a higher pass mark.

Any candidate who fails the second exam should be stripped of their rights and citizenship and should face a hefty prison sentence.

This may seem autocratic or communist, but in my view its the only way we can revive the language or else it will die out in years to come.

I'd love to hear your opinions on my way of thinking and alternative views on how we should go about reviving the language.

This wouldn't look out of place scrawled in shit on a insane asylum bathroom wall.

dubhthach wrote: »

That gives a language community of 187,827 who at least use Irish on a regular basis during a week in a non-educational situation. Even if we exclude the speakers who at lest use it on weekly basis you are still looking at 77,185 daily speakers using it as a home language.

Are we comparing like with like? For example, are those 119,526 Poles more or less proficient in Polish than the 77,185 people who claim to speak Irish every day? For all we know, many might just use a cupla focal in the morning.

And, let's not forget, unlike Irish, there are no state incentives for Polish speakers.

opti0nal wrote: »

Are we comparing like with like? For example, are those 119,526 Poles more or less proficient in Polish than the 77,185 people who claim to speak Irish every day? For all we know, many might just use a cupla focal in the morning.

And, let's not forget, unlike Irish, there are no state incentives for Polish speakers.

If I was really going with the "Cúpla Focail" then I would have given the stats for "Less often" (outside Education) which comes to 607,460, heck or even the figures for those who just speak it only in education (519,181)

There's plenty of research over the last 30-40 years which put the number of daily 1st language users in the range 60-70k eg. These are L1 language speakers.

What state incentives would these be? As someone who put myself down as a "Less often" speaker (though I do use Irish fair bit on internet) I'd like to know what incentive I'm supposedly receiving from the state?

LordSutch

An Coilean wrote: »

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

I accept that the current status of Irish in schools is a sad and faded impression of what the founding fathers of this state might have had in mind. I would also hazard a guess that if such an evaluation did take place in the form of a public debate, then there would be massive change in the way Irish is taught, (and I am not talking about small change), I am talking about the fact that every Irish pupil does Irish for fourteen years, then they leave school, yet they still can't speak Irish!!! ergo should Irish be compulsory for all, if the population at large dont want to soak it up?

If the re-evaluation took place and the public voted to keep the status quo (compulsory Irish, but very few speak it) then of course I would accept the outcome, but why would they vote Yes in view of the fact that mandatory Irish for all has clearly failed over so many decades.

opti0nal wrote: »

I beg to differ. It's a private publication. Also of interest would be to know who funded it?

You beg to differ with what? That NUIM is a third level institution? Or that it's an independent public body? While NUIs are public, I would not consider them independent because they are funded by the Government. So it's a piece of third level research, the government being the main sponsor. I got it from the Mayo County Council site. But you beg to differ and it's a private publication. We'll agree to disagree so.

Do you suspect that the research was carried out incorrectly or altered? Because that's a perfectly valid point to make if you can demonstrate an imbalance or refute it with other research. I would welcome any points you have on this.

opti0nal wrote: »

It's an artificial demand supported by expectations of jobs created by the Official Languages Act.

Irish is no longer a requirement for jobs in the civil service. The Official Language Act was introduced in 2003. I see no evidence that is has had any impact whatsoever on the demand for Irish. If you read posts in this thread that aren't in favour of eliminating Irish completely from the school curriculum you'll be hard pressed to find any that attribute this to job creation.

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?

So while Irish speakers are relevant to each other (and again I'm searching for and am possibly misconstruing your point) they're not relevant to you then? Dubhthach has provided a breakdown of populations above. It seems there are more Polish speakers and far fewer Mandarin speakers (presumably a sizeable proportion of the ethnic Chinese). Do you think we should learn Polish from the age of four? Rather than asking for justifications for Irish being taught in primary school and providing no reasons why it shouldn't, maybe you could suggest reasons for Polish? Again, I'd be happy to discuss them.

opti0nal wrote: »

Yet you give no reason for this opinion other than it being cheaper and more practical to teach than Russian or Mandarin.

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

Desperate times, but being economically implausible is not a good enough reason not to teach children Russian or Mandarin from primary school? Irish is cheaper and more practical. Seems a perfectly valid argument. Indeed our ancestors did abandon Irish. Because they had to. Do you think we have to now? How come?

opti0nal wrote: »

That's the link you gave.

I didn't provide a link to a particular article, I provided a link to a google search page. I don't know what you read. Again, are you saying that kids weren't beaten in schools for speaking Irish? Is that the point you're making? What are you basing this on?

opti0nal wrote: »

That we're an English-speaking society, that our ancestors chose to speak English and made their children do so. That Irish will never replace English as our common language. That the people who 'support' Irish don't actually want to speak it themselves.

Really? You think these ideas are "too often avoided" in debates about the Irish language? You mustn't be looking at the same thread as me. Most people know the history of the Irish language to some extent I would say. Most people accept that Irish will never replace English as our common language. I don't think you've had a eureka moment there.

Most people who support Irish I would presume do actually want to be able to speak it. Perhaps the number of Polish parents who want their kids learning Polish in school far out-number this 'support'? (why the quotes?)
But you've stated it as "a distasteful fact", not your own opinion so I'm sure you've done research and can provide evidence and links. All I do is make arguments based on practicality and affordability.

opti0nal wrote: »

Another distasteful fact dodged. You can't learn a compulsory subject like Irish without being forced to speak it.

Yes, but I really don't think this bears comparison with the penal laws. I was clarifying my own point. And I hardly think it's "distasteful". About as distasteful as having to study poetry, do algebra or read a book you find boring. I do find your language sensationalist.

opti0nal wrote: »

Language is a tool of a functioning society, not a hobby.

Language is a lot of things, but it certainly is not a hobby. Agreed.

LordSutch wrote: »

I am talking about the fact that every Irish pupil does Irish for fourteen years, then they leave school, yet they still can't speak Irish!!! ergo should Irish be compulsory for all, if the population at large dont want to soak it up?

The average student receives less then 100 hours per year during those 14 years of Irish language contact, is it any wonder then there are issues. For example in the Times there during the week they mentioned that on an immersive language course in the Gaeltacht that a student over a 3 week period would receive as much language contact as they would during a whole year in the school system. In others words someone who went for 4 summers would probably ended up doubling their lanuage contact during secondary school. Now I regret that I never asked my parents to send me to the Gaeltacht -- awh well.

Some language policies have specified expected levels of competence in terms of number of instructional hours. For example, in 1977, the Ontario Ministry of Education in Canada set down three basic levels of competence which may be achieved from second language programmes (Swain, 1981:490). The ‘basic’ level of competence is considered to be achievable in 1,200 hours, a ‘middle’ level in 2,100 hours and a ‘top’ level in 5,000 hours.

A ‘basic’ level indicates that a learner has acquired “a fundamental knowledge of the language, the ability to participate in simple conversations, the ability to read simple texts and the ability to resume the study of French in later life”.

A learner who has reached the ‘middle’ level should be able “to read newspapers and books of personal interest with help from a dictionary, to understand radio and television, to participate adequately in conversation and to function reasonably well in a French-speaking community after a few months’ residence”.

The ‘top’ level, should enable the learner to “continue his or her education using French as the language of instruction at the college or university level, to accept employment using French as the working language, and to participate easily in conversation”.

Summing across the whole eight years of primary school, this more recent estimate amounts to 936 hours. A similar calculation for post-primary schools, based on figures supplied by the Department of Education and Science (2002), indicates that the total time spent learning Irish at secondary is almost half of that at primary. This is estimated on the basis of an average of three hours Irish per week (x 66 weeks) at the two years of senior level and two hours and forty minutes a week (x 99 weeks) at junior level (3 years), giving a total average of 452 hours.Combining the estimates for primary and secondary school gives an average of 1,388 hours.

Now the Canadians reckon that to be able to understand French in Radio and TV you need at least 2,100 hours language contact, given that average Irish student only gets 2/3rds that time when it comes to Irish language contact and that it's drawn over 14 years (as oppose to say 5) it's no wonder that there is an issue.

If we take the hours above at secondary as a proxy for other languages been thought in secondary school then we can say that at most your average secondary school student will get 500 hours exposure to French (or German or Spanish). It it any wonder then that we issues with 2nd/3rd language acquisition in this country.

In comparison if you are lucky enough to have option to attend a Gaelscoil followed by a Gaelcholáiste (there were no Gaelcholáiste in Galway city until 1994) then the following would apply:

Finally, it is interesting to compare the number of Irish contact hours in the ‘ordinary’ school system with the corresponding amount in the ‘all-Irish’ or immersion school system. The ‘all-Irish’ estimate was calculated on the basis of the length of the school day (minus time on English instruction) over the eight year primary cycle and the five year secondary cycle. The final estimate for ‘full’ immersion (from primary through secondary) students who have completed the Leaving Certificate programme is approximately 10,700 hours, a figure which is almost eight times that for ‘ordinary’ school students who are taught the language as a subject only. These immersion school leavers would under the proficiency definitions presented earlier be considered more than capable of functioning at the ‘top’ level of proficiency. That is to say, if they so wished, they should be able to partake in all conversations in Irish, proceed to third level Irish-medium education, or take up employment where Irish is the working language.

Put simply part of issue is simply down to the mediocrity of the Irish education system. Which of course is a multifaceted issue affecting alot more then just Irish language acquisition -- eg. general literacy, maths, foreign language acquisition.

Interesting as well is some of research been done at moment which shows that after the age of 8 that children of foreign nationals generally appear to do better at Irish then children of Irish origin. Why does this happen simple foreign nationals generally have a more positive attitude to the language then alot of Irish people (none of this "dead language" etc etc.). Basically a large proportion of Irish students switch off at 8, this ties into both wider societal view of the language and the issues with teaching it in my opinion anyways.

Personally I wouldn't have any compulsory subjects in secondary school, then again I'd also think we should scrap the Leaving Cert in it's current format, which is just a learn by rote system driven by supply and demand on what courses are deemed "popular" or more important "easy to make money in" (anything connected to construction industry during the bubble for example)

NTMK

oldmangrub wrote: »

You beg to differ with what? That NUIM is a third level institution? Or that it's an independent public body? While NUIs are public, I would not consider them independent because they are funded by the Government. So it's a piece of third level research, the government being the main sponsor. I got it from the Mayo County Council site. But you beg to differ and it's a private publication. We'll agree to disagree so.

The study was finance by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht which i would not call an independent body.
it was not funded by NUIM all information in these privately funded thesis, surveys, etc. are subject to review by the Financier.

if it was truly independent it would have been done without Dept involvement

Either way I'm not getting involved in this thread. the information could be accurate/inaccurate but its worth considering what the best result for the surveys backer is.

An Coilean wrote: »

Best available option, there are many factors to consider, educational outcomes and cost being to the fore amongst them.

Now before you go on some crusade trying to claim that by not making what is best for the student the only relevant factor, I am somehow trying to force Irish on everyone regardless of the price everyone else has to pay.

What is best for the student is not the only relevant factor, Giving every student their own private tutor in what ever subject they like from an endless list of options might be what is best for the student, but no one would claim that that is a realistic prospect, and as such, though it might be what is best for the student, it is not the best available option. Hopefully that is clear enough.

So, if in the event of a re-evaluation of the position of Irish in the Education system, it was found that the best available option was to keep Irish as a compulsory subject, would you accept that?

Not a crusade as such - I just think that education should be just that - education. If someone can covince me it;s best for the student, I'm happy to along with it. But if someone can convince me that it's best for the langauge, then, no. Sorry. Especaily if there are better options for the students.

Obviously, finainces and other factors have to be taken into account, but we're talking about selecting a curriculum here, not study methods or techniques. And one without Irish (or a language) is a realistic option. Whether it's the best option for the student to study as such, or let them choose for themselves.

Of course I would accept it. But I would take some convincing. And as such, I have yet to here a good reason as to how it benefits the student other then the culture/heritage/history buzzwords that people never seem to be able to define or actually explain the benefits of.

NTMK wrote: »

The study was finance by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht which i would not call an independent body.
it was not funded by NUIM all information in these privately funded thesis, surveys, etc. are subject to review by the Financier.

if it was truly independent it would have been done without Dept involvement

Either way I'm not getting involved in this thread. the information could be accurate/inaccurate but its worth considering what the best result for the surveys backer is.

Thanks NTMK. You appear to be agreeing with me.
As I stated in previous post, I wouldn't call it an independent body because it's funded by the government.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And as such, I have yet to here a good reason as to how it benefits the student other then the culture/heritage/history buzzwords that people never seem to be able to define or actually explain the benefits of.

It depends on what you consider the purpose of education to be. If you're not interested in culture, heritage or history what would you like to teach children instead?
If you happen to agree with me that learning a second language from the age of 3/4 is important for cognitive development is there an alternative to Irish that we can afford?
And if we can improve the curriculum to the extent that relative fluency in Irish is achieved by students is this of benefit to the student and the language or just the latter? Or is there still an element of backwardness associated with Irish that prevents people from seeing learning it as an achievement in the first place?
To what extent should the education shape the child or the child shape the education?
Interesting philosophies that have been going back and forth for centuries. Apart from the Irish one. Sure feels like it's been going on for centuries now. I'm off to get my slippers and pipe.
Night night faceless entities, or oíche mhaith!

oldmangrub wrote: »

It depends on what you consider the purpose of education to be. If you're not interested in culture, heritage or history what would you like to teach children instead?
If you happen to agree with me that learning a second language from the age of 3/4 is important for cognitive development is there an alternative to Irish that we can afford?
And if we can improve the curriculum to the extent that relative fluency in Irish is achieved by students is this of benefit to the student and the language or just the latter? Or is there still an element of backwardness associated with Irish that prevents people from seeing learning it as an achievement in the first place?
To what extent should the education shape the child or the child shape the education?
Interesting philosophies that have been going back and forth for centuries. Apart from the Irish one. Sure feels like it's been going on for centuries now. I'm off to get my slippers and pipe.
Night night faceless entities, or oíche mhaith!

I never said I wasn't interested in culture and heritage, I just said that no one had yet come up with a clear defintion of what it was and how it benefitted the leaving cert student. People just seemed to take it as a universal truth that they were good things.

I also suggested some time ago that a single cultural syllabus incorporating Irish art, dance, music, langauge, GAA would probably be a better idea, but no one seemed interested.

Should a second language be compuslory? Possibly - but why does it have to be same langauge nation-wide? But I'm of the opinion that, by the age of 14 or so, and ten years studying, either the student should be able to decide for himself, or we're not educating properly. Whatever skills you teach, if you ultimately decide that the student is not capable of expressing a like or dislike, or a knowledge of their own abilities, then what's the point? They're just programmed robots at the end of the day.

For me, and education should shape the child at the start, but the child should shape their own education towards the end. Education shaping leaving cert students ceases to be education and starts being propaganda.

But we digress (and have been doing so for some time now!) because the point is: how do we revive the langauge. And the biggest problem faced is that people just can not think otuside the education box. Pradoxically, because their education never taught them how to.

TL-DR version
Let the student decide as much as possible, but give them the skills to be able to decide. If you don't, and you want to spoonfeed them until they're 18, all you're doing is indoctrinating them. Everyone thinks the same. No one knows how to do things differently. Which is one of the biggest reasons people don't know how to revive the language outside of education.

And who are you calling a faceless entity?!

oldmangrub wrote: »

You beg to differ with what? That NUIM is a third level institution? Or that it's an independent public body?

You said that the document was published. by NUIM. It was a published by a private individual.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Do you suspect that the research was carried out incorrectly or altered?

The questions don't adequately measure the true level of support of Irish in terms of what personal commitment the person surveyed is making to the the revival of the language. True supporters of Irish, speak Irish. Most people in Ireland don't.

oldmangrub wrote: »

The Official Language Act was introduced in 2003. I see no evidence that is has had any impact whatsoever on the demand for Irish.

An expensive office in Spiddal, demands for all public services to be provide in Irish, all public signage to be changed.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Do you think we should learn Polish from the age of four? Rather than asking for justifications for Irish being taught in primary school and providing no reasons why it shouldn't, maybe you could suggest reasons for Polish? Again, I'd be happy to discuss them.

No, I think Russian or Mandarin would be better economic choices. German and Spanish are also good candidates for the precious time of schoolchildren.

My point about Polish speakers in the statistics is that they're obviously genuine Polish speakers whereas given the figures for Irish may include people who don't speak Irish all the time but just say they do. How is the claimed proficiency and frequency of Irish-speaking verified?

oldmangrub wrote: »

are you saying that kids weren't beaten in schools for speaking Irish? Is that the point you're making? What are you basing this on?

The lack of evidence provided by you that this is the case.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Most people accept that Irish will never replace English as our common language.

Except the members of CNAG, which represents the Irish Language Movement.

Optional, I don't think there's any point even quoting you. The source I gave for the survey is on the thread. You perhaps define public and private in your own unique way but that's going off tangent and I said we could agree to disagree. You're stating opinions about what matters in supporting Irish as if they are facts. Facts don't need to be supported, opinions do. Convenient for you perhaps. You quote me and instead of discussing the point, mention offices in Spiddal that don't support your original point without even attempting to show how it does. You're saying some languages are better economic choices and not supporting your opinion. You mention language proficiency in the adult population without offering opposing research or even explaining why it matters. They omitted stating explicitly in whatever article you read that educators carried out beatings because it's presumed obvious by context. Articles can't be all written to the cognitive standards of infants. "Annie ate the apple"- "How did she eat the apple?" "With her mouth." "Tally sticks were used in classrooms" should suffice. You may google the word represent and you'll find a dictionary definition.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But I'm of the opinion that, by the age of 14 or so, and ten years studying, either the student should be able to decide for himself, or we're not educating properly.

I completely agree with you about Irish as a core subject for the Leaving Certificate. Or indeed any core subject for the reasons you mentioned. I don't have a problem with the seven core subjects we have at Junior Certificate level though many of them could be tackled as part of a cross-curricular approach; I'm thinking of C.S.P.E and S.P.H.E in particular. I actually would prefer if the Junior Certificate was done at fifteen or sixteen. I don't personally think it would benefit students to decide at fourteen, (maybe I've too little faith in youth) but I more or less agree with you.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Should a second language be compuslory? Possibly - but why does it have to be same langauge nation-wide?

No, it certainly doesn't. I think it would be great if there were bilingual schools in French, German etc. However, it would require drumming up demand for a particular language in a particular community. It would probably require private funding. Presently we're nowhere near meeting the demand for Gaelscoils and that's with sufficient support and doesn't cost the state or parents anything. I imagine the DOE would have the same opposition to French, German or Polish bilingual schools that they seem to have to Gaelscoils at the moment.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I never said I wasn't interested in culture and heritage, I just said that no one had yet come up with a clear defintion of what it was and how it benefitted the leaving cert student. People just seemed to take it as a universal truth that they were good things. I also suggested some time ago that a single cultural syllabus incorporating Irish art, dance, music, langauge, GAA would probably be a better idea, but no one seemed interested.

Coming up with a clear definition of culture and heritage is a bit of an ask. I would put it under the bracket of knowledge about and engagement in the world around you. By broaching the idea of a cultural syllabus at all you do seem to think it would benefit students in some manner. Irish art, dance, music and the GAA are accounted for in a cross-curricular sense across primary and secondary curricula. If you're suggesting that the Irish language syllabus at secondary level be diluted with art, dance, music and the GAA I think it would significantly dumb down the subject. The secondary school curricular should be geared in the most part towards specialised knowledge in my view, not so much things the students are capable of understanding on their own in a small amount of time. If you're talking about incorporating them into the primary syllabus that's already in practise.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But we digress (and have been doing so for some time now!) because the point is: how do we revive the langauge. And the biggest problem faced is that people just can not think otuside the education box. Pradoxically, because their education never taught them how to.

At some point if you want to revive the language you need to start by learning it so it is inextricably linked with education, though education won't conjure up a mass revival. I don't believe that will happen anyway. If the demand for Gaelscoils was met, there would be a huge increase in the number of people that can speak Irish and can be spoken to in Irish so education certainly could have a very large role. Those that have little interest in Irish can only think inside the education box as that's their only experience of it. I don't know if I agree that they haven't been taught differently. They usually ignore Irish by their own choice and I don't think there's much point challenging that outside education. There are community groups, social networks, media, entertainment and organisations available for people who do have an interest in Irish.

I'm calling us all faceless entities. Technology is still a novelty to me.

opti0nal wrote: »

Except the members of CNAG, which represents the Irish Language Movement.

Since when? The days of CnaG being the only Irish language organisaion are long gone. The Irish Language movement is far from being a single homogeneous entity, there is really no single organization that can claim to represent the whole.
Even if there was it would more likely be one of the umbrella organisations like Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, or Pobal in the North.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Coming up with a clear definition of culture and heritage is a bit of an ask. I would put it under the bracket of knowledge about and engagement in the world around you. By broaching the idea of a cultural syllabus at all you do seem to think it would benefit students in some manner. Irish art, dance, music and the GAA are accounted for in a cross-curricular sense across primary and secondary curricula. If you're suggesting that the Irish language syllabus at secondary level be diluted with art, dance, music and the GAA I think it would significantly dumb down the subject. The secondary school curricular should be geared in the most part towards specialised knowledge in my view, not so much things the students are capable of understanding on their own in a small amount of time. If you're talking about incorporating them into the primary syllabus that's already in practise.

It was kind a of a trade-off suggestion. But my point is that people throw these words aroudn as if they're soem kind of universal truths. Culture did nothign for me, I'm not the only one. The Irish language held me back, and I'm not the only one. And I know a lof people got a lot from it, but there seems to be some sort od automatic idea that it is there fore vital to eveyone. It simpey isn't. So the question was, how do you define "culture" and "heritage" and why are they so important?

At some point if you want to revive the language you need to start by learning it so it is inextricably linked with education, though education won't conjure up a mass revival. I don't believe that will happen anyway. If the demand for Gaelscoils was met, there would be a huge increase in the number of people that can speak Irish and can be spoken to in Irish so education certainly could have a very large role. Those that have little interest in Irish can only think inside the education box as that's their only experience of it. I don't know if I agree that they haven't been taught differently. They usually ignore Irish by their own choice and I don't think there's much point challenging that outside education. There are community groups, social networks, media, entertainment and organisations available for people who do have an interest in Irish.

By education, I meant state exam education. A lot of adults want to learn Irish and there are evenign courses and other facilities open to them, and, while this also qualifies as education, it does so in a different context.

And also: why is no one trying to sell the lanaguge to kids as something other than a school subject? There are social networks and media, but how many kid s are using it? Why are they not being "sold" to non Irish speaking kids? There is a certain sense of preaching to the choir about this.

I have little interest in the lanaguge, but I've come up with two or three suggestions now, that just get ignored.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And also: why is no one trying to sell the lanaguge to kids as something other than a school subject? There are social networks and media, but how many kid s are using it? Why are they not being "sold" to non Irish speaking kids? There is a certain sense of preaching to the choir about this.

Of course that is happening, In almost every third level institution there is an Irish language society, and they tend to be quite successful. In UCD, Trinity and UCC the Cumann Gaelach is one of the Largest societies on campus.

Student run Irish societies are starting to be set up in secondary schools also, both Foras na Gaeilge and Glor na nGeal run competitions to encourage the spread of them.

Conradh na Gaeilge have run a campaign over the last few summers speaking to the kids at the various Gaeltacht summer camps around the country.

Its actually going quite well, youth involvment in the Irish language is groing every year.

An Coilean wrote: »

Of course that is happening, In almost every third level institution there is an Irish language society, and they tend to be quite successful. In UCD, Trinity and UCC the Cumann Gaelach is one of the Largest societies on campus.

Student run Irish societies are starting to be set up in secondary schools also, both Foras na Gaeilge and Glor na nGeal run competitions to encourage the spread of them.

Conradh na Gaeilge have run a campaign over the last few summers speaking to the kids at the various Gaeltacht summer camps around the country.

Its actually going quite well, youth involvment in the Irish language is groing every year.

This kind of spells out the points I make:
1 - It's happening more at adult level than child/teenager level
2 - Conragh na G are wasting their time targetign summer camps in teh Gaeltacht: as I said, preaching to the choir.

That said, the point about Irish societies starting up is good - but again, it;s happening in schools where the asscoaition is going to be with it as a school subject, but it comes back to the same problem as all the points you make: you have taken the education system or the Gaeltach as a base.

It needs to happen more in extra-curricular activies, such as soccer, boxing, swimming, ballet, art clubs, or whatever kids do these days. And it needs to happen wheer Irish isn;t seen as a popular choice. Go for what the enjoy doing it and introduce it there. Do it gradually and on a fun base. The boxing coach have the occasion 30-second chat with his 10-year-old boxer as Gaelige. The art teacher doing the occasional sketch in both languages. They doesn't have to be fluent, or even conversational. THIS is what I mean by outside the education box.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It was kind a of a trade-off suggestion. But my point is that people throw these words aroudn as if they're soem kind of universal truths. Culture did nothign for me, I'm not the only one. The Irish language held me back, and I'm not the only one. And I know a lof people got a lot from it, but there seems to be some sort od automatic idea that it is there fore vital to eveyone. It simpey isn't. So the question was, how do you define "culture" and "heritage" and why are they so important?

As I said, it depends what you consider important. Put simply, culture and heritage are the customs and histories of any people. That's why I'd put culture and heritage under the bracket of knowledge of and engagement with the world around you. I don't think there is an automatic idea that it is 'vital' for everyone, 'valid' would be a more appropriate term. There is a widely held assumption that culture is valid.
The Irish language is a language, it doesn't have the power to hold you back. Learning Irish enhances your knowledge of Irish and can't impact negatively on your intellectual development. I think you might be thinking in the education box, which is fine, but combining that with philosophical questions about defining culture confuses the argument. How and ever, I don't think Irish is vital for everyone. And I don't think people who have no interest in it or see it as something holding them back should be taught it beyond the Junior Cert. It's bad for them, bad for their class-mates and bad for the language.

As for the extra-curricular activities, there appears to be a lot of them, and they're on the increase. There is a fine line Irish organisations have to walk on; opening any sort of club exclusively for Irish can be seen as elitist. Cú Giobach made a good point about what happens in social gatherings when Irish is not the dominant language. He quoted this;

As long ago as the early 1970', in a major research report, the Committee on Irish Language Attitude Research (Report 1975) drew attention to the effect of social language norms on the speaking of Irish.
The norms identified restrict the speaking of Irish to situations in which the participants know each other's language competence, know that each participant wishes to speak Irish and know that none of the participants is a non-speaker of Irish.
The absence of any one of these conditions will normally guarantee that the conversation will be in English.

It can be awkward and embarrassing to speak a language to someone with a notably higher or poorer standard than yourself. And a lot of supporters of the language are embarrassed by their own level of attainment sadly.