How to revive the Irish language.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 06:57AM

indioblack wrote: »

........I've no experience of Irish schools myself - but you don't need to follow threads like these to realise that many regard the attempts to broadly re-introduce Irish into everyday life as failure...
How much of this can be laid at the door of the education system?
And what responsibilty falls on the shoulders of successive governments for this failure - when you look at it baldly it's suprising - since independance I'd have thought politicians would have seen the Irish language as worthy of as much resources as the country could afford.

The politians are focused on their need to show that our independent state is "Not England". The Irish language provides them with a brand image that shows that. No politician actually believes that the population will adopt Irish as a vernacular and no politician cares, because the purpose of the brand image is served by Irish irrespective of anybody speaking it.

As for using the education system: Eoin MacNeill, the first Minsister for Education, and Michael McDowell's ancestor, said: "you might as well be putting wooden legs on hens as trying to restore Irish through the school system". (Quoted in Joe Lee's "Ireland 1912 -1985"). But still he was willing to distort the whole education system for which he was responsible. Can there be a worse example of the cynical abuse of political power?

As for the effects on literacy of using the education system in this way, nobody put it better that Eamonn de Valera, and Eamon O Cuív's ancestor, did in the Dáil in 1936:

"There is no doubt that the child who, to-day, is doing Irish as well as English, has to a certain extent double the work, so far as reading and writing are concerned, and if you want to get that language in the same time you must necessarily fall short of what was done when there was only one language involved... We shall have to be satisfied with a less high standard in Engliskh. There is no other way for it."

Well: he got his way!

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 07:12AM

Interest in History wrote: »

As for the effects on literacy of using the education system in this way, nobody put it better that Eamonn de Valera, and Eamon O Cuív's ancestor, did in the Dáil in 1936:

"There is no doubt that the child who, to-day, is doing Irish as well as English, has to a certain extent double the work, so far as reading and writing are concerned, and if you want to get that language in the same time you must necessarily fall short of what was done when there was only one language involved... We shall have to be satisfied with a less high standard in Engliskh. There is no other way for it."

Well: he got his way!

Are you trying to say here that the learning of a second language in school is detrimental to literacy and the learning of English?
If that is correct then the standard of languages and literacy across Europe (not to mention the world) must be very poor, due to the sheer number who learn second languages at school.

I just want add here the thoughts of people a bit more familiar with the subject than Dev.
Cognitive benefits of learning a language.

Yes, because it has been shown to enhance children's cognitive development. Children who learn a foreign language beginning in early childhood demonstrate certain cognitive advantages over children who do not. Research conducted in Canada with young children shows that those who are bilingual develop the concept of "object permanence" at an earlier age. Bilingual students learn sooner that an object remains the same, even though the object has a different name in another language. For example, a foot remains a foot and performs the function of a foot, whether it is labeled a foot in English or un pied in French.

Additionally, foreign language learning is much more a cognitive problem solving activity than a linguistic activity, overall. Studies have shown repeatedly that foreign language learning increases critical thinking skills, creativity, and flexibility of mind in young children. Students who are learning a foreign language out-score their non-foreign language learning peers in the verbal and, surprisingly to some, the math sections of standardized tests. This relationship between foreign language study and increased mathematical skill development, particularly in the area of problem solving, points once again to the fact that second language learning is more of a cognitive than linguistic activity.
A 2007 study in Harwich, Massachusetts, showed that students who studied a foreign language in an articulated sequence outperformed their non-foreign language learning peers on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test after two-three years and significantly outperformed them after seven-eight years on all MCAS subtests.

Furthermore, there is research (Webb bibliography) that shows that children who study a foreign language, even when this second language study takes time away from the study of mathematics, outperform (on standardized tests of mathematics) students who do not study a foreign language and have more mathematical instruction during the school day. Again, this research upholds the notion that learning a second language is an exercise in cognitive problem solving and that the effects of second language instruction are directly transferable to the area of mathematical skill development.

The notion of "earlier is better" in language learning seems to be upheld by the fact that longer sequences of foreign language instruction seem to lead to better academic achievement, overall. Because second language instruction provides young children with better cognitive flexibility and creative thinking skills, it can offer gifted students the intellectual and developmental challenges they need and desire.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 07:40AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Are you trying to say here that the learning of a second language in school is detrimental to literacy and the learning of English?

In Ireland, in this country, and in that period, the effect of the Revival was to reduce school attainment in English, and this was greatly to the detriment of the economically poorer and academically weaker sections of society. I don't know the relevant cases in other countries, and anyway, it is only in this country, Ireland, that I can attempt to hold the politicians to account.

On the legalities of the school policies, in 1965 the late professor John M. Kelly wrote:

"Now if I am right in suggesting that the State's right to compel the learning of Irish in the National School is perhaps less that 100% clear... the next question would be this: is it entitled to treach so much of it, at the expense - necessarily - of other subjects? Is it entitled to teach 25% more Irish than Arithmetic, twice as much as English, five times as much as History or Geography? It is entitled to prescribe that children at the National School should spend about one third of their precious, all too short years in primary education on this one subject, not to speak of the effort and time expended on the same subject when it is used as a medium of instruction on other subjects?"

Of course, the situation to-day is not so extreme. Nonetheless, in 2011, Ruairi Quinn linked the amount of time spent nowadays on Irish and Religion with illiteracy problems.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 07:54AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Are you trying to say here that the learning of a second language in school is detrimental to literacy and the learning of English? If that is correct then the standard of languages and literacy across Europe (not to mention the world) must be very poor, due to the sheer number who learn second languages at school.

I just want add here the thoughts of people a bit more familiar with the subject than Dev.
Cognitive benefits of learning a language.

When and where is the known reality of our situation in Ireland to be taken into account?

Irish has been taught throughout the education system for ninety years. It commences in infants' class. It, plus other additional languages are either essential or generally needed to get into our universities. So with all these experiences, can you point to some feature of our society and say: "Behold! these are the cognitive benefits accruing to us from this extensive language learning of ours!"

After all of that, we can't even staff the international call centres, for lack of competent speakers of other languages.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 07:59AM

Interest in History wrote: »

"I would suggest that where a pupil learns Irish or any other subject solely as a consequence of compulsion, physical or psychological, this learning does not count as genuinely educative. This is because learning can be characterised as truly educative only where it is undertaken because of some intrinsic value found in the subject or activity in question.

Of course, Irish is not the only compulsory subject at primary level. And you're putting your own context onto this, much the same as you misrepresented the research of Reg Hindley in his book "The Death of the Irish Language." I'm sure he'd appreciate that. Kevin Williams is not arguing that Irish should not be compulsory, but that teachers should aim to demonstrate the "intrinsic value" in it. Something that "do your homework or you'll have to do Irish" etc doesn't nurture. Since Irish is a language, it has its own intrinsic value. I would argue that a four year old will understand that in spite of the fact that for ideological rather than pedagogical reasons, some adults might not.

Interest in History wrote: »

The politians are focused on their need to show that our independent state is "Not England". The Irish language provides them with a brand image that shows that. No politician actually believes that the population will adopt Irish as a vernacular and no politician cares, because the purpose of the brand image is served by Irish irrespective of anybody speaking it.

This is not at all what our politicians are focused on. At all. This is based on your own personal opinion of how other people think, stated as fact. The Irish language has lobby groups. Lobby groups have been responsible for the majority of reform in respect of Irish-speakers. Politicians do not, and will never give priority to a minority community. They're focused on votes. The position of the Irish language is protected because, however unwise you consider it, the majority of the Irish people support it at the moment. Votes. Not branding.

Interest in History wrote: »

As for using the education system: Eoin MacNeill, the first Minsister for Education, and Michael McDowell's ancestor, said: "you might as well be putting wooden legs on hens as trying to restore Irish through the school system". (Quoted in Joe Lee's "Ireland 1912 -1985"). But still he was willing to distort the whole education system for which he was responsible. Can there be a worse example of the cynical abuse of political power?

So, politician uses colourful expression to express how difficult something is, then manages to succeed in doing it anyway? Perhaps you can't think of a worse example of the cynical abuse of political power, but that really depends how you'd compare genocide, enforced starvation etc to teaching Irish.

Interest in History wrote: »

"There is no doubt that the child who, to-day, is doing Irish as well as English, has to a certain extent double the work, so far as reading and writing are concerned, and if you want to get that language in the same time you must necessarily fall short of what was done when there was only one language involved... We shall have to be satisfied with a less high standard in Engliskh. There is no other way for it."

Well: he got his way!

It's not 1936 anymore. Pedagogical research into language learning has moved on. It is widely accepted that bilingual teaching in schools enhances literacy and language acquisition. I believe this research is the stumbling block our conspiring pro-Irish politicians face in trying to reduce the amount of time Irish is taught in primary schools. It's why they failed to enforce a strategy of teaching English to junior infants in Gaelscoils (senior infants is the common practise).

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 08:02AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Of course, the situation to-day is not so extreme. Nonetheless, in 2011, Ruairi Quinn linked the amount of time spent nowadays on Irish and Religion with illiteracy problems.

This topic has nothing to do with religion.

I have given you a link regarding the effects of learning a second language in school, you can either look into it or examine the results of numerous studies on this area by those learned in the subject or keep quoting politicians who have very little experience or knowledge in this regard, your choice.

The only subject I personally might listen to regarding, or question a politician about, is politics, (or more accurately, how to get votes).

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 08:04AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Irish has been taught throughout the education system for ninety years. It commences in infants' class. It, plus other additional languages are either essential or generally needed to get into our universities. So with all these experiences, can you point to some feature of our society and say: "Behold! these are the cognitive benefits accruing to us from this extensive language learning of ours!"

What "extensive language learning"? I think you need to re-read Dubhthach's post about the hours given to Irish. We've already gone into the problems faced in competing linguistically with continental countries. See my post #977. We should strive to compete, yes. The argument I thought had moved on to; how?

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 08:26AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

.... ......And you're putting your own context onto this, much the same as you misrepresented the research of Reg Hindley in his book "The Death of the Irish Language." ..............

Can you show how I misrepresented the research of Reg Hindley? I think that it is fair that I should ask this of you and I think that in fairness you should respond.

Meanwhile, let me quote another passage from his book regarding old Eurpean elites having their own language. (Of course his book was written some time ago:)

"....It is interesting to reflect that the Dublin middle-class Gaeilgeoirí (professional Irish speakers) have in effect been attempting to revive and replicate such a situation, imposing Irish as an 'elite' language on a vast non-Irish speaking majority: but with the added eccentricity (cj. Latin in mediaeval Europe) that they do not even speak Irish as their native language themselves."

If you reject the references from Hindley, then here is Tom Garvin in "Preventing the Future" where he also addresses the matter of the political elite.

"The idea that Ireland's future lay with the revival of the irish language was an elite conviction after independence in 1922, an idea essentially derived form Gaelic League ideas. This was never an authentic or widely held populat belief. A quiet scepticism about the possibility or even desireability of linguistic revival accompanied a passive assent to the massive official attempt at revival spearheaded by the schools; if the elites wanted it, the non-elites must follow."

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 08:31AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

What "extensive language learning"? I think you need to re-read Dubhthach's post about the hours given to Irish. We've already gone into the problems faced in competing linguistically with continental countries. See my post #977. We should strive to compete, yes. The argument I thought had moved on to; how?

Points taken.

I just want to make the point that the concrete realities in Ireland do not accord with the generalisations about learning languages that are being quoted.

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 08:36AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Points taken.

I just want to make the point that the concrete realities in Ireland do not accord with the generalisations about learning languages that are being quoted.

You are making an assumption (language learning is responsible for poor levels of literacy and the standard of English, among other things) that has been shown to be incorrect, and basing your statement above on that assumption.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 08:37AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This topic has nothing to do with religion.

I have given you a link regarding the effects of learning a second language in school, you can either look into it or examine the results of numerous studies on this area by those learned in the subject or keep quoting politicians who have very little experience or knowledge in this regard, your choice.

The only subject I personally might listen to regarding, or question a politician about, is politics, (or more accurately, how to get votes).

Of course the subject has nothing to do with religion and Ruairi Quinn never suggested that it had. He was addressing the question of illiteracy and in that context the allocation of school time to Irish and to religion.

I don't quote any politicians on the gounds that they are experts on education. I quote them because they control the education system.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 08:48AM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You are making an assumption (language learning is responsible for poor levels of literacy and the standard of English) that has been shown to be incorrect, and basing your statement above on that assumption.

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 08:51AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Of course the subject has nothing to do with religion and Ruairi Quinn never suggested that it had. He was addressing the question of illiteracy and in that context the allocation of school time to Irish and to religion.

Well since religion and Irish are two utterly different subjects, putting them together like that regarding improving literacy, which religion has little bearing on and Irish actually does, shows that his thinking is a little "askew" on the matter.

I don't quote any politicians on the gounds that they are experts on education. I quote them because they control the education system.

If you want to actually learn about something I would suggest listening to an expert on the subject.

Interest in History wrote: »

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Again you are basing that comment, not on people who actually know about the subject and who would actually disagree with it, but on people who's expertise lies elsewhere, it is a very simple matter of using logic in deciding who to listen to.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 08:56AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

It's not 1936 anymore. Pedagogical research into language learning has moved on. It is widely accepted that bilingual teaching in schools enhances literacy and language acquisition. I believe this research is the stumbling block our conspiring pro-Irish politicians face in trying to reduce the amount of time Irish is taught in primary schools. It's why they failed to enforce a strategy of teaching English to junior infants in Gaelscoils (senior infants is the common practise).

Yes: we have an unhappy intermingling of the pedagogical and the political. Teaching and learning Irish relates to the first. "The Revival of Irish" relates to the second.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 08:56AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Reg Huindley, in his book "The Death of the Irish Language" characterises the response of the general population of Ireland to the Revival efforts of the governments as "structured evasion". Meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that ostensively they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing.

You take two words "structured evasion" from the actual book. You put your own slant on it, specifically "meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that (.....) they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing." When you say "meaning" you could have stated "from these two words I'm going to put this context on what I think Reg Hindley means." Or "in my opinion this means." When you state "meaning" without a subject some might presume you're paraphrasing Hindley himself. Reg Hindley has stated his annoyance that people who are inherently opposed to Irish occasionally use his book for their own purposes. Mostly due to the title. It's lazy, and deliberately misleading and doesn't respect it as a full body of work.

As for your recent quotes, I would say that "imposing Irish as an elite language" is poorly articulated and a contradiction in itself. I do not accept that "Dublin middle-class Gaeilgeoirí" constitute "the political elite." You appear to be still talking about history. Nineteen twenty two is a long time ago. The fact is, that now, in 2012, the political support for Irish does not account for its support among Irish people. It's many decades since independence and we're in a better position to make choices about our identity now than we were then. The Gaelic revival drove the want for independence in the first place. If it hadn't had taken place, we would likely still be part of the UK. You won't find many Irish people who have a problem with it. You'll find a lot of "non-elite" Irish people now have ideologies that are more in common with the "elite" of the 10's and 20's than with the "non-elite" of that same era. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 09:04AM

Interest in History wrote: »

No: "language learning" is not "responsibile for poor levels of literacy". But the mis-allocation of school hours in the periods that I referred to had a neagtive bearing on literacy in English.

I was not there, of course, so I can only quote what I have read.

Can you clarify, are you opposed to second language learning on the basis that you believe (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) that learning a second language has a negative bearing on literacy in English?

Yes: we have an unhappy intermingling of the pedagogical and the political. Teaching and learning Irish relates to the first. "The Revival of Irish" relates to the second.

Can you elaborate? Pedagogical = learning Irish in school; fine. Political = the revival of Irish; which is what in practise?

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 09:17AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

You take two words "structured evasion" from the actual book. You put your own slant on it, specifically "meaning that the population can't stop government actions, and that (.....) they must go along with them, but that they indirectly make sure that it all comes to nothing." When you say "meaning" you could have stated "from these two words I'm going to put this context on what I think Reg Hindley means." Or "in my opinion this means." When you state "meaning" without a subject some might presume you're paraphrasing Hindley himself. Reg Hindley has stated his annoyance that people who are inherently opposed to Irish occasionally use his book for their own purposes. Mostly due to the title. It's lazy, and deliberately misleading and doesn't respect it as a full body of work.

As for your recent quotes, I would say that "imposing Irish as an elite language" is poorly articulated and a contradiction in itself. I do not accept that "Dublin middle-class Gaeilgeoirí" constitute "the political elite." You appear to be still talking about history. Nineteen twenty two is a long time ago. The fact is, that now, in 2012, the political support for Irish does not account for its support among Irish people. It's many decades since independence and we're in a better position to make choices about our identity now than we were then. The Gaelic revival drove the want for independence in the first place. If it hadn't had taken place, we would likely still be part of the UK. You won't find many Irish people who have a problem with it. You'll find a lot of "non-elite" Irish people now have ideologies that are more in common with the "elite" of the 10's and 20's than with the "non-elite" of that same era. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

I quote your cogent reply in full. You are correct in criticising the way that I inserted "meaning" without the attendant discipline. I did not think that iin our thread that was needed. But was the result misleading? Did I give an unfair impression to any reader as to Hindley's point of view about the language elite. A very similar point about the elite was made by Tom Garvin in his "Preventing the Future". Was my quotation misleading in that case, in your opinion?

You say that it is many decades since independence and we're in a btter position to make choices about our identity than we a were then. Well: I could debate whether or not you can 'choose' an identity. But anyway, when one relates this thought to a community, and when it involves a change from what they are to becoming something different, then you inevitably rest on the actions of an elite in leading the change. The Irish are an English-speaking nation now and if you're going to change that it ivevitably requires some leadership, if not some arm-twisting.

You'd enjoy Oakshott on this, I think, where he says in his "Truthfulness, Liberalism, and Critique":

"Many people have come to know that the way to the politics of identity is often coercive (people turn out to need some vogorous help in discovering their identity.)"

An Coilean · 21-08-2012 09:44AM

Interest in History wrote: »

Of course, the situation to-day is not so extreme. Nonetheless, in 2011, Ruairi Quinn linked the amount of time spent nowadays on Irish and Religion with illiteracy problems.

Indeed he did, and as has been pointed out to you several times, as far as Irish is concerned, he has been proven worng. That you insist on continuing to bang this drum suggests to me that you are more interested in some kind of smear campaign than actually debating the topic based on evidence.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 09:45AM

Interest in History wrote: »

I quote your cogent reply in full. You are correct in criticising the way that I inserted "meaning" without the attendant discipline. I did not think that iin our thread that was needed. But was the result misleading? Did I give an unfair impression to any reader as to Hindley's point of view about the language elite. A very similar point about the elite was made by Tom Garvin in his "Preventing the Future". Was my quotation misleading in that case, in your opinion?

You say that it is many decades since independence and we're in a btter position to make choices about our identity than we a were then. Well: I could debate whether or not you can 'choose' an identity. But anyway, when one relates this thought to a community, and when it involves a change from what they are to becoming something different, then you inevitably rest on the actions of an elite in leading the change. The Irish are an English-speaking nation now and if you're going to change that it ivevitably requires some leadership, if not some arm-twisting.

You'd enjoy Oakshott on this, I think, where he says in his "Truthfulness, Liberalism, and Critique":

"Many people have come to know that the way to the politics of identity is often coercive (people turn out to need some vogorous help in discovering their identity.)"

With regard to both quotes I believe they demonstrate the apathy among ordinary people to politics. That's universal. The Gaelic revival did involve ordinary people from early on (without any executions) so I would argue that it has long since crossed the social divide as well as the political one. GAA is played all over the country and despite the support of middle-class families, the most impressive revival of Irish in Dublin has taken place in Clondalkin.

We can make choices about our identity. We don't chose our identity but rather it's the result of our environment; a combination of what we are similar to, and what we differ from. If a significant proportion of Irish people want to speak Irish, but don't, I would accept that that is still part of their identity. I would have no problem describing them as "English-speakers and "people who want to speak Irish". I would have a problem with anyone deciding on their behalf that the latter is irrelevant.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:06AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

Can you elaborate? Pedagogical = learning Irish in school; fine. Political = the revival of Irish; which is what in practise?

A political ideology requires universality and uniformity. In its nature it is to be applied to the whole community and everybody has to comply because of the validity of the tenets of the ideology and because they are deemed to be important, or indeed vital, to the survival of the community politically.

Education starts with the aim of imparting basic skills to all of the young so that they can function in society. But then it progresses more towards choice and the free will of the pupil, allowing for more differencaition reslting from pupils' different needs, aptitudes and resources.

Education has a basic flexibility. The problem with ideologies is that they become competely rigid and almost imposible to change after it becomes embedded in a political system. So it is with our Revival. A relevant quotation, this time from Adrian Kelly's book "Compulsory Irish": "The attempted revival through the education system illustrated the dangers of allowing ideology to win over pragmatism in the fomulation of policy".

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:19AM

Interest in History wrote: »

A political ideology requires universality and uniformity. In its nature it is to be applied to the whole community and everybody has to comply because of the validity of the tenets of the ideology and because they are deemed to be important, or indeed vital, to the survival of the community politically.

Education starts with the aim of imparting basic skills to all of the young so that they can function in society. But then it progresses more towards choice and the free will of the pupil, allowing for more differencaition reslting from pupils' different needs, aptitudes and resources.

Aside from education, is Irish applied to the whole community with everyone having to comply? Are you talking solely about taxation?

I think education should strive towards the acquisition of skills until the age of sixteen, and after that in tuning skills in preparation for the work-place. This will be premature for some kids, but the present system does hinder those who do have their mind (more or less) made up. Prior to the age of sixteen, if subjects were optional it would be parents who decided what their kids did and I actually would rather the education system decided and offered a full syllabus. Lack of subject choice in single-sex schools frustrates me. All subjects, in my view, should be optional from the age of sixteen.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:21AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

With regard to both quotes I believe they demonstrate the apathy among ordinary people to politics. That's universal. The Gaelic revival did involve ordinary people from early on (without any executions) so I would argue that it has long since crossed the social divide as well as the political one. ......

We can make choices about our identity. We don't chose our identity but rather it's the result of our environment; a combination of what we are similar to, and what we differ from. ....

On the first point - Tom Garvin had a research paper way back - 1986. "The Invention of Tradition: The Gaelic League and the Politics of Revolution in Ireland".

On your second point - I think that all that matters here is the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached. I personally don't think that when everything else in a person's life and environment is unchanged that it makes a whit of difference whether he calls a glass a 'gloine' or something else. But like you, I don't mind either.

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 10:37AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

Aside from education, is Irish applied to the whole community with everyone having to comply? ......

I think education should strive towards the acquisition of skills until the age of sixteen, and after that in tuning skills in preparation for the work-place. This will be premature for some kids, but the present system does hinder those who do have their mind (more or less) made up. Prior to the age of sixteen, if subjects were optional it would be parents who decided what their kids did and I actually would rather the education system decided and offered a full syllabus. Lack of subject choice in single-sex schools frustrates me. All subjects, in my view, should be optional from the age of sixteen.

On your first point the answer is 'Yes, of course, while in school'. And the state authorities do this on ideological grounds with the result that the education/linguistic outcome is a secondary matter to them. To teach Irish to every child in every school is the requirement of the ideology and the validity of the ideology does not depend on whether or not the children acquire Irish as a functional language.

Of course, most people like 'some' Irish anyway, so the universality aspect of the ideology only becomes a problem as students get to the point of wanting to drop Irish in favour of something else. But the system allows most students to get a good pass in Irish without actually having to learn it as a language. And thus they get through at minimum cost. "Structured evasion" as some might call it.

On your second point: I'd say that practically everybody would agree with your position. I do.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 10:58AM

Interest in History wrote: »

On the first point - Tom Garvin had a research paper way back - 1986. "The Invention of Tradition: The Gaelic League and the Politics of Revolution in Ireland".

On your second point - I think that all that matters here is the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached. I personally don't think that when everything else in a person's life and environment is unchanged that it makes a whit of difference whether he calls a glass a 'gloine' or something else. But like you, I don't mind either.

Well, on the first point, you haven't responded unless you're asking me to read a research paper from 1986?

I'm not sure what you mean about "the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached." Especially when you go on to state that there isn't a whit of difference about whether you call a glass a 'gloine' or something else; are you implying the identity of Irish-speakers is imaginary? Is that tolerant? Are you not trying to diminish their difference to English-speakers and diminish their similarity to their own community? This fascinates me.
While we've moved on from Sapir, linguists will still contend that languages do indeed influence our thought processes. Certainly this is more notable between Irish and English than closely-related languages like English and French. Combine Irish with Swahili and Mandarin and you're heading for a roller-coaster. There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

As to your updated argument. If the state authorities teach Irish on ideological grounds while most people like 'some' Irish is that really controversial? edit: Sorry you were saying it wasn't controversial until a certain point. Ignore that if you've already read it. The Gaelscoil movement is community-based in its foundation rather than political, any movement towards the bilingual teaching I'm espousing would need to be too. It's the only way I can see us competing with multi-lingual companies that might work. Might being the word that most matters from politicians' point of view. It won't be funded or encouraged unless there's community support.
I'm sure that a lot of people would disagree with me on my second point. There are various groups and individuals that for a multitude of reasons would prefer if one of /two of/ all of the core subjects remained so until the completion of the Leaving Certificate. Many for valid reasons; some are just concerned parents who don't trust their daft kids to choose subject combinations wisely. It's sticky, but I would tend to agree with another poster that if we haven't taught them those skills by then, we simply haven't taught them enough.

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 11:36AM

oldmangrub wrote: »

There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

I was reading recently via a link from here or another thread about a people speaking (I think) a Central Asian language where they conceive of the past being ahead of them, and the future behind them, for example the phrase "Looking ahead to the future" would make no sense and could elicit the response "If the future is in front of you, why can't you see it?".

This also brings to mind something I came across recently reading about so called "untranslatable words" in this link someone puts something across better than I can.

For myself, the hardest part about learning a new language isn’t so much getting acquainted with the translations of vocabulary and different grammatical forms and bases, but developing an inner reflex that responds to words’ texture, not their translated “ingredients”. When you hear the word “criminal” you don’t think of “one who commits acts outside the law,” but rather the feeling and mental imagery that comes with that word.

Thus these words, while standing out due to our inability to find an equivalent word in out own language, should not be appreciated for our own words that we try to use to describe them, but for their own taste and texture. Understanding these words should be like eating the best slab of smoked barbequeued ribs: the enjoyment doesn’t come from knowing what the cook put in the sauce or the seasoning, but from the full experience that can only be created by time and emotion.

oldmangrub · 21-08-2012 11:51AM

You're right Cú! I think that's reflected in primary schools across the country.

Student: "Cad é an Ghaeilge ar 'It was bleeding deadly!'
Teacher:

Student: "Irish is crap."

or even;
Student: So out of the blue, that's 'as an ngorm', yea?
Teacher:

"Try 'gan choinne'
Student: "Irish is a load of crap".

Cú Giobach · 21-08-2012 12:05PM

oldmangrub wrote: »

You're right Cú! I think that's reflected in primary schools across the country.

Student: "Cad é an Ghaeilge ar 'It was bleeding deadly!'
Teacher:
Student: "Irish is crap."

or even;
Student: So out of the blue, that's 'as an ngorm', yea?
Teacher: "Try 'gan choinne'
Student: "Irish is a load of crap".

Ní dearfainn i do choinne.

paddyandy · 21-08-2012 12:29PM

There is Big Money to be made reviving the dead ;but first you have to convince people that it can be done .The Irish language shares a similar mode of existence for the foreseeable future .

Interest in History · 21-08-2012 12:43PM

oldmangrub wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean about "the level of tolerance with which the matter of identity is approached." Especially when you go on to state that there isn't a whit of difference about whether you call a glass a 'gloine' or something else; are you implying the identity of Irish-speakers is imaginary? Is that tolerant? Are you not trying to diminish their difference to English-speakers and diminish their similarity to their own community? This fascinates me.

There's a qualitive difference between "Tá uaigneas orm" and "I am lonely" for example. We also inherit cultural traits through our language, for example Irish vocabulary reflects a preoccupation with the sea and more of its proverbs have a rural foundation than say English would.

.

My point about tolerance is to do with leaving people to feel privately what they feel privately. And in society, to extend to different people as much option as possible to follow their own predelictions. How do I know whether or not another person's values are imaginary? Should I care? Does that other person need me to care? They are real to them and that's enough for me. When the gaeilgoir is alone with friends does he fret over whether or not he is "appreciated" by a bunch of people speaking another language in a different place?

I don't know if you're right in saying that the vocabulary of the Irish language has more about the sea than the vocabulary of English. can you elaborate on your "Tá uaigness orm" / "I m lonely" point. Obviously the sense of either phrase in either language will vary a lot according to context. And of course, the form. So: e.g. " I feel very alone" versus Táim im aonair".

indioblack · 21-08-2012 01:34PM

Interest in History wrote: »

The politians are focused on their need to show that our independent state is "Not England". The Irish language provides them with a brand image that shows that. No politician actually believes that the population will adopt Irish as a vernacular and no politician cares, because the purpose of the brand image is served by Irish irrespective of anybody speaking it.

Good reply. It's similar to a post I made here some days ago - the people want Irish to be there - they just don't want to learn it.

How to revive the Irish language.

Comments