Peig Sayers

quietsailor · 20-10-2013 09:35AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Cultural, possibly, but culture goes beyond mere language. Why is Irish art not on the curriculum? I argue that art is more cultural than language becuae of it's universal appeal: I can look at a painting by by someone who never spoke english and instantly be able to communicate with them.

I could also argue that the culture shared by most children is that of pop culture - and not that of a langauge.

There are a few efforts being made to get pop culture and Irish seen as one - There was a song popular earlier this year - Pompeii by Bastille and an Irish college - TG Lurgan created an Irish version of the song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwE-_wrj6I

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 11:33AM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Because this isn't France (or Quebec) or Germany.

As I ppinted out - bilingulism isn't of concern to the advocates.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 11:42AM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

The education of the child seems to be a secondary concern of yours. You see this measure as an act of cultural imperialism and despite the added benefits (educative ones) to children acquiring Irish, you argue against it.

I'm not arguing agasint Irish, I'm arguing against the upheavel in asiing a child in one language and then switchign everything five or six years later. What if you have intelligent kids who don't like the langauge? If a child is starting school, it makes sense to have it in the langauge that they are already use to. Which is simplier: teaching a child how to add in subtract, or teaching a child how to add or subtract for the first time in a language they aren't familiar with? Come to think of it, what's the goal? Teaching a child how to add and subtract or not?

French or German would indeed be beneficial, but they don't have historical and cultural ties to our society and country. They have not influenced the English we speak to such an extent that it has been shaped into its own unique version, Hiberno-English. They are not spoken as first languages in pockets of the country. They have not given rise to a rich cultural heritage that spawned generations of wonderful literature. There is no tangible connection to either French or German here, not in the same way there is for Irish.

This is/was the arument for Peig: it's not just Irish, it's "cultural" Irish. Also, it kinda of helps my point that "bilingual" isn't really the goal here.

And I could argue that it is upon language that societies are framed; our own thoughts are given structure by language; language is communication. Language influences and constructs thought and it is far more culturally significant than art. Language is truly universal and within functional societies, everyone participates fully in and through language. This is not the case with art. Your interpretation of this art is based on your capacity to give form to thought; this is achieved through language.

I also entirely disagree with your assertion that children only connect with pop culture.

How can you say language is universally and art is not...? Do you need to speak Dutch to enjoy the works of M C Escher? Do you need to speak German to listen to Mozart?

If you disagree with children not experienceing pop culture, then don't bring up the idea of "microcosmos of society". It is the most important culture in their lives from their point of view. Their school, their environment, which is what I think you meant, is not in Irish, so brining up social enhancement in the playground is a non-starter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 11:45AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

we are talking about teaching the next generation in a way that does not end up with them hating the language , ya know , the point of the thread

No we're not - we're talking about bringing even more compulsorty Iirsh into their lives having spent years wondering why compulsory doesn't work.

dj jarvis · 20-10-2013 12:19PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No we're not - we're talking about bringing even more compulsorty Iirsh into their lives having spent years wondering why compulsory doesn't work.

you say that , yet ignore that we have also been calling for a change in how it is taught - and when , we have been teaching it a "subject" , and as we know, this does not work , but teaching everything via Irish from the start would make a huge difference , as it has shown in other nations , as has been pointed out many times.
not seeing the problem with picking a date , from that date teach the kids starting from that in year in Irish , and bingo , within 2 decades everyone would have Irish ALONGSIDE English and other languages

it would not have a difference on your life , and the kids learning from the start would not know any difference , so fail to see the problem

we would end up with a nation that can actually speak their own language

you are pushing the idea that it would interfere with other schooling , but yet present no evidence to back this up , other nations do this perfectly well , why cant we ?

dj jarvis · 20-10-2013 12:26PM

funny but , out of all the kids i know who are being taught in Gaelscoileanna, they can speak both English and Irish perfectly , and understand maths and history ect ect

so using that formula , and extending it nation wide , what would the down side be that i am not seeing ?
as has been pointed out multiple times - other nations have done it , and it has worked - but then these other nations look to have a semblance of pride in their national language

and maybe that is the problem , the Irish just dont care about it , and if that is the case , then should we all not just admit it , and let the language die ?

P. Breathnach · 20-10-2013 12:38PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

... out of all the kids i know who are being taught in Gaelscoileanna, they can speak both English and Irish perfectly...

I was raised in an English-speaking household and all my schooling was through Irish. The upshot was that I was fully fluent in English and highly (but not perfectly) fluent in Irish by the time I sat my Leaving Cert.

The learning cost was negligible in the sense that acquiring good Irish was not a burden on my time nor did it involve any great effort.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 12:59PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

you say that , yet ignore that we have also been calling for a change in how it is taught - and when , we have been teaching it a "subject" , and as we know, this does not work , but teaching everything via Irish from the start would make a huge difference , as it has shown in other nations , as has been pointed out many times.
not seeing the problem with picking a date , from that date teach the kids starting from that in year in Irish , and bingo , within 2 decades everyone would have Irish ALONGSIDE English and other languages

it would not have a difference on your life , and the kids learning from the start would not know any difference , so fail to see the problem

we would end up with a nation that can actually speak their own language

you are pushing the idea that it would interfere with other schooling , but yet present no evidence to back this up , other nations do this perfectly well , why cant we ?

Change is all very well, but as things stand, we teach kids 4 to 5 hours of Irish a week, have doen for ages, and all the changes in the world have made no difference. This does not fill me with a lot of faith that you can take over the entire week and do it.

The other curious point is that, after a few pages since the idea is muted, eveyone is still pointing out the positives for the language and that the idea would work in terms of the language, and that more people would be speakign the langauge, but not of the student or the education system which only got the token bilingual mention - which, as I pointed out, people are using as a smokescreen.

Interestingly, not one person has put forward any evidence to indicate that such a plan would be benefitial for the child, other than the "bilingual" idea which, as I said, if you were really that interested in, you'd pick a different langauge. And you certainly would not do EVERYTHING in that language!! They might have done it in Finalnd in the past, they might have done it in Catlonia in he past, but not one mention has been made of what the effects (positive and negative) were of these societies. The lanaguge might have survived, how did it go for the kids?

You've also got to contend with the fact that teachers would be teaching outside of their mother tongue as well and, from what I hear from both sides of the debate, is tha the standard of Irish in techers speaking in English langauge schools is not great.

You've also got to contend with parents, a lot of whom will want their kids learning in English and goign to school to get an education and ultimately a place in a third level institution or a good job, not to contribute to an upkeep of a langauge they feel indifferent about. It's a competitive world and parents are very vociferous in getting the BEST start for their kid.

You've also got to contend with the langauge commissioner, by the way - apparently, we have to make ALL State services available in BOTH languages. Education is a State service.

But hey - who gives a ****? If we get a few more Irish speakers that's more important than what anyone else wants or needs?

Conclusion? It's confirmation bias: you already have the idea in plan, you now need to find evidence for the conclusion. The langauge is the prime interest here, not the kid, and the "cultural" and "bilingual" arguemnts came afterwards.

You can't use force on this. That should be pretty much evident by now.

Insect Overlord · 20-10-2013 01:19PM

Whatever you say, Princess. Beating the same drum over and over again doesn't make you any more right.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 01:23PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not arguing agasint Irish, I'm arguing against the upheavel in asiing a child in one language and then switchign everything five or six years later. What if you have intelligent kids who don't like the langauge? If a child is starting school, it makes sense to have it in the langauge that they are already use to. Which is simplier: teaching a child how to add in subtract, or teaching a child how to add or subtract for the first time in a language they aren't familiar with? Come to think of it, what's the goal? Teaching a child how to add and subtract or not?

This is/was the arument for Peig: it's not just Irish, it's "cultural" Irish. Also, it kinda of helps my point that "bilingual" isn't really the goal here.

How can you say language is universally and art is not...? Do you need to speak Dutch to enjoy the works of M C Escher? Do you need to speak German to listen to Mozart?

If you disagree with children not experienceing pop culture, then don't bring up the idea of "microcosmos of society". It is the most important culture in their lives from their point of view. Their school, their environment, which is what I think you meant, is not in Irish, so brining up social enhancement in the playground is a non-starter.

Do you know anything about language acquisition? As I've already said, it wouldn't be a massive upheaval for a child of that age. Their brains are designed in such a way as to readily absorb language. They would pick it up quickly with relative ease. You are conflating the experience of an adult learning a language from scratch with that of a child. They are not the same.

Have you ever taught a language to children? It's very easy to communicate at a basic level (and children of that age only function at a basic level through language anyway) with gestures and games. The education of a child is not compromised by the introduction of a new language; in fact, as already pointed out, extensive studies have shown additional language learning and use increases intelligence and enhances performance in other subjects at school. These students do better in school.

As for not liking the language, that's a very simplistic analysis of this. It's the equivalent of saying, "What if a baby doesn't like his first language?". Again, language acquisition for adults is markedly different to language acquisition for kids.

No, that doesn't help your argument at all. Bilingualism is indeed the goal; but this goal also affords the acknowledgement of cultural heritage. You asked why not French or German, I answered. Don't try to twist my words back at me.

I can say language is universal because practically every person in the history of the world USES language. Not everyone uses art. Language mediates thinking, and sentient thought is what truly differentiates us from animals. Again, your interpretation of this art is mediated through your dependency on language and if it is not, then your response is broken down to mere impulses i.e. you are no different from an animal. Societies and cultures are built upon language. Language actually informs the way we think and interpret things (like art). Studies show that if your language lacks a word to describe a concept, you will then find it difficult to conceptualise it. Language is the cornerstone of culture.

You've misinterpreted my last point too. I didn't say children don't experience pop culture, I said it is not the ONLY culture they have contact with. I also have no idea when I brought up social enhancement in the playground.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 01:46PM

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Whatever you say, Princess. Beating the same drum over and over again doesn't make you any more right.

Are you accusing me of being right or is that a typo? If the later, are you actually going to debate a point I made or assume some moral high ground?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 01:52PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Do you know anything about language acquisition? As I've already said, it wouldn't be a massive upheaval for a child of that age. Their brains are designed in such a way as to readily absorb language. They would pick it up quickly with relative ease. You are conflating the experience of an adult learning a language from scratch with that of a child. They are not the same.

Have you ever taught a language to children? It's very easy to communicate at a basic level (and children of that age only function at a basic level through language anyway) with gestures and games. The education of a child is not compromised by the introduction of a new language; in fact, as already pointed out, extensive studies have shown additional language learning and use increases intelligence and enhances performance in other subjects at school. These students do better in school.

As for not liking the language, that's a very simplistic analysis of this. It's the equivalent of saying, "What if a baby doesn't like his first language?". Again, language acquisition for adults is markedly different to language acquisition for kids.

No, that doesn't help your argument at all. Bilingualism is indeed the goal; but this goal also affords the acknowledgement of cultural heritage. You asked why not French or German, I answered. Don't try to twist my words back at me.

I can say language is universal because practically every person in the history of the world USES language. Not everyone uses art. Language mediates thinking, and sentient thought is what truly differentiates us from animals. Again, your interpretation of this art is mediated through your dependency on language and if it is not, then your response is broken down to mere impulses i.e. you are no different from an animal. Societies and cultures are built upon language. Language actually informs the way we think and interpret things (like art). Studies show that if your language lacks a word to describe a concept, you will then find it difficult to conceptualise it. Language is the cornerstone of culture.

You've misinterpreted my last point too. I didn't say children don't experience pop culture, I said it is not the ONLY culture they have contact with. I also have no idea when I brought up social enhancement in the playground.

You're saying I know nothing about langauge learning (despite speaking three languages to a good level and three more to a basic conversation level, but go on....) when you have no put forward ANY strategy to implement the plan. You also ignored the points I made about parents, teachers and the langauge commissioner. Does ANYONE else have a say in your idea?

Have you actually done ANY research to see if this is workable, practical or are there any negative side effects to the plan? You also ignore the point I made about not actually going into depth about the Catalan and/or Finnish models - they just, apparenlty "work" so ours will too?

Starting school can be stressful for a child. Most institutions go out of their way to make the transistion as smooth as possible. Your idea does the opposite and your argument as such is, "oh, they'll pick it up with relative ease". Well... why isn't that happening now?

20-10-2013 01:58PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're saying I know nothing about langauge learning (despite speaking three languages to a good level and three more to a basic conversation level, but go on....) when you have no put forward ANY strategy to implement the plan. You also ignored the points I made about parents, teachers and the langauge commissioner. Does ANYONE else have a say in your idea?

Starting school can be stressful for a child. Most institutions go out of their way to make the transistion as smooth as possible. Your idea does the opposite and your argument as such is, "oh, they'll pick it up with relative ease". Well... why isn't that happening now?

You clearly don't have a clue about foreign language acquisition in childhood. No disrespect, but your posts clearly illustrate that. You keep going on about how it would be so hard for the kids. No, it wouldn't. Someone posted saying that they themselves were educated in Irish and came from an English-speaking home and it wasn't a bother to learn it.

Why isn't it happening now? Are you serious? The whole point is that it's not working now because nobody ever becomes fluent in a language from studying a bit of poetry for 4-5 hours a week, which is pretty much how Irish is taught in mainstream schools. Nobody becomes fluent in French like that, so why would it happen with Irish? Kids who go to French immersion schools do become fluent, as kids who go to gaelscoileanna. The whole point is that they're living their life through the language, rather than just learning stuff off a page. That's how language acquisition works.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 02:08PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

You clearly don't have a clue about foreign language acquisition in childhood. No disrespect, but your posts clearly illustrate that. You keep going on about how it would be so hard for the kids. No, it wouldn't. Someone posted saying that they themselves were educated in Irish and came from an English-speaking home and it wasn't a bother to learn it.

They did so by going to Irish speaking schools and being taught by a better teachers with a better standard of Irish. You're talking of taking an Englsih speaking school and changing it completely and you don;t expect any problems? You STILL have not answered my point about the quality of teachign in Irish, which is not as high as it needs to be to do all subjects in Irish. And you're STILL arguing from the point of view of the language!

The system works as it is for school-beginners - why do you wnat to change it? For the sake of the language or for the sake of the student? Honestly?

Why isn't it happening now? Are you serious? The whole point is that it's not working now because nobody ever becomes fluent in a language from studying a bit of poetry for 4-5 hours a week, which is pretty much how Irish is taught in mainstream schools. Nobody becomes fluent in French like that, so why would it happen with Irish? Kids who go to French immersion schools do become fluent, as kids who go to gaelscoileanna. The whole point is that they're living their life through the language, rather than just learning stuff off a page. That's how language acquisition works.

The quality of the 4-5 horus a week is my point. Again, who's going to teach it? And I say that based on threads with pro-Irish speakers who complain about the level of teaching Irish not being up to standard.

And you STILL haven't asnwered my question: is this something the majority of parents want, or something YOU want?

20-10-2013 02:15PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They did so by going to Irish speaking schools and being taught by a better teachers with a better standard of Irish. You're talking of taking an Englsih speaking school and changing it completely and you don;t expect any problems? You STILL have not answered my point about the quality of teachign in Irish, which is not as high as it needs to be to do all subjects in Irish. And you're STILL arguing from the point of view of the language!

The system works as it is for school-beginners - why do you wnat to change it? For the sake of the language or for the sake of the student? Honestly?

You're getting into the practice of it. You were arguing about the theory earlier. I don't know how it would work in practice, but it's worked elsewhere. I think both the language and the student would benefit from Irish medium schools.

The quality of the 4-5 horus a week is my point. Again, who's going to teach it? And I say that based on threads with pro-Irish speakers who complain about the level of teaching Irish not being up to standard.

And you STILL haven't asnwered my question: is this something the majority of parents want, or something YOU want?

The quality is mainly to do with how it's taught. As a dead language, not a living one.

I don't know what the majority of parents want because I haven't asked them all. I know I'd be happy for my kids to go to a gaelscoil. If I stay in London and ever have the money, I'd send them to a French school. What I don't want is for them to grow up monolingual.

inocybe · 20-10-2013 02:24PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And you STILL haven't asnwered my question: is this something the majority of parents want, or something YOU want?

That's easily answered, look to the percentage of parents choosing gaelscoils. It's pretty low.

20-10-2013 02:35PM

inocybe wrote: »

That's easily answered, look to the percentage of parents choosing gaelscoils. It's pretty low.

The number of schools is also pretty low, no? There wasn't one where I grew up.

inocybe · 20-10-2013 02:47PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

The number of schools is also pretty low, no? There wasn't one where I grew up.

Easy then, offer more gaelscoils as a choice.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 02:57PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

You're getting into the practice of it. You were arguing about the theory earlier. I don't know how it would work in practice, but it's worked elsewhere. I think both the language and the student would benefit from Irish medium schools.

The quality is mainly to do with how it's taught. As a dead language, not a living one.

I don't know what the majority of parents want because I haven't asked them all. I know I'd be happy for my kids to go to a gaelscoil. If I stay in London and ever have the money, I'd send them to a French school. What I don't want is for them to grow up monolingual.

Well, I have to aruge against the throery because no one's put forward anthing practical synosis as to how to overcome the problems I mention, or an overview of foreign models that have worked. Which leads me to think you haven't researched this idea anywherenear as well as you think you have.

You haven't researched, either, whether or not other people share your idea, it would seem; which further convicnes me that my MAIN oppositon to the idea is correct: it's more in the intersts of the language than that of the child. Again, somehting which has never been challenged.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 03:25PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're saying I know nothing about langauge learning (despite speaking three languages to a good level and three more to a basic conversation level, but go on....) when you have no put forward ANY strategy to implement the plan. You also ignored the points I made about parents, teachers and the langauge commissioner. Does ANYONE else have a say in your idea?

Have you actually done ANY research to see if this is workable, practical or are there any negative side effects to the plan? You also ignore the point I made about not actually going into depth about the Catalan and/or Finnish models - they just, apparenlty "work" so ours will too?

Starting school can be stressful for a child. Most institutions go out of their way to make the transistion as smooth as possible. Your idea does the opposite and your argument as such is, "oh, they'll pick it up with relative ease". Well... why isn't that happening now?

No I didn't say anything remotely like that. I asked you a direct question. Do you know anything about language acquisition? You still haven't answered. I know a bit myself. I've written long essays on it for college and studied both the theory and the practical aspects of it.

I think it's fantastic that you speak three languages. Fair play! Might I ask when and how you learned them? Was it as a child, teenager or adult? What learning techniques did you use? How long did it take to become fluent? Did language immersion contribute to this? And what level of fluency would you give yourself on the CEFR scale? Did you feel this multilinguism contributed to your life in any positive way?

I didn't realise I had to put forward a strategy to implement the plan. I was speaking theoretically. I was saying I think it would be a good thing and would be beneficial. Nowhere did I state I have all the answers as to how to execute it.

Does ANYONE else have a say in your idea? You are just as stubborn with your viewpoint as I am. It's not a good idea, end of story with you. You haven't considered any of the benefits as put forward by myself and others. You cling to this idea that it would be an upheaval, discounting all evidence to the contrary. I do think it would be hard to implement it now, yes. However, theoretically I believe it would be beneficial for the reasons I have put forward.

Equally, I could ask have you done any research on this? You seem absolutely certain nobody wants it and that it would cause disruption to children's lives. You have not made reference to any studies to support this.

I believe Garrett Chubby Spoon has answered this point already but I'll reiterate. The reason it's not happening now is because the students are not being immersed in the language. True fluency to a native level is only really achieved through language immersion. This is completely different to teaching poetry and literature for a few hours a week. In one of my earlier posts, I outlined my personal experience of Irish in school. I love languages. However, I was never taught Irish. I was taught to learn off essays and regurgitate them on exam day. That is not language learning.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 03:32PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, I have to aruge against the throery because no one's put forward anthing practical synosis as to how to overcome the problems I mention, or an overview of foreign models that have worked. Which leads me to think you haven't researched this idea anywherenear as well as you think you have.

You haven't researched, either, whether or not other people share your idea, it would seem; which further convicnes me that my MAIN oppositon to the idea is correct: it's more in the intersts of the language than that of the child. Again, somehting which has never been challenged.

Your argument against the theory rests on the inaccurate assumption that it would be disruptive for the child and would result in a decline in education standards.

You only mentioned these practical problems in your last few posts; people were responding to your theoretical arguments earlier.

Nor have YOU researched the response to the idea. Are you actually criticising posters for something you are guilty of yourself?

And again, I responded to your assertion that it is in the interests of the child. You ignored this and proceed now to assert that nobody has challenged you on this.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 03:36PM

inocybe wrote: »

That's easily answered, look to the percentage of parents choosing gaelscoils. It's pretty low.

The take up is increasing. Gaelscoils usually have long waiting lists. And there is a shortage of them in terms of demand. There wasn't one near me either when I was in school.

Iwasfrozen · 20-10-2013 03:41PM

Garrett Chubby Spoon wrote: »

But it's not Irish vs a major European language, is it? It's Irish and English vs just English and there are plenty of benefits in being able to speak Irish and English. Being bilingual makes it easier to learn additional languages in the future, it connects Irish children to their culture, it means you can discuss things in public in other countries without being understood, plenty of reasons.

I am learning it now but it's incredibly difficult. Children soak up languages like sponges, why wouldn't you introduce them when the kids are young?

Of course it's Irish vs a major European language. We could teach Irish in school or we could teach Spanish, French, German or Russian etc. Considering only what is beneficial for the child what advantages does the teaching or Irish have over a major European language?

Well keep at it. Realise that your hobby is your hobby and don't try to force the issues you are interested in onto other people's children. As for introducing Irish at a young age we already do that. Not that it does any good.

Iwasfrozen · 20-10-2013 03:45PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

we are talking about teaching the next generation in a way that does not end up with them hating the language , ya know , the point of the thread.

Why is the attitude of random people towards Irish any of your concern? I want my future children to be educated in English. You have no right to force your views on me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 03:49PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Your argument against the theory rests on the inaccurate assumption that it would be disruptive for the child and would result in a decline in education standards.

... and yours doesn't?

You have merely put forward the theory that all kids learn languages easily from exposure. I disagree - I think you're goign to find sizeable numbers not reacting to it well at all.

You only mentioned these practical problems in your last few posts; people were responding to your theoretical arguments earlier.

Nor have YOU researched the response to the idea. Are you actually criticising posters for something you are guilty of yourself?

And again, I responded to your assertion that it is in the interests of the child. You ignored this and proceed now to assert that nobody has challenged you on this.

I've mentioned the practical conerns of parents three times, teachers twice and the langauge commissoner once. You've yet to deal with them.

You're the one putting forward the idea, the onus is on you to research it and present it. I can only rebut what you present.

I seem to have missed your responce regarding it being in the best interests of the child, my apoloigies, please highlight.

Fred Swanson · 20-10-2013 03:51PM

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 03:57PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed.

20-10-2013 04:02PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, I have to aruge against the throery because no one's put forward anthing practical synosis as to how to overcome the problems I mention, or an overview of foreign models that have worked. Which leads me to think you haven't researched this idea anywherenear as well as you think you have.

You haven't researched, either, whether or not other people share your idea, it would seem; which further convicnes me that my MAIN oppositon to the idea is correct: it's more in the intersts of the language than that of the child. Again, somehting which has never been challenged.

I haven't researched this idea at all. I'm only telling you that your argument against children starting a new language at age 4/5 is ridiculous.

ViveLaVie · 20-10-2013 04:13PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... and yours doesn't?

You have merely put forward the theory that all kids learn languages easily from exposure. I disagree - I think you're goign to find sizeable numbers not reacting to it well at all.

I've mentioned the practical conerns of parents three times, teachers twice and the langauge commissoner once. You've yet to deal with them.

You're the one putting forward the idea, the onus is on you to research it and present it. I can only rebut what you present.

I seem to have missed your responce regarding it being in the best interests of the child, my apoloigies, please highlight.

Haha. Yeah mine doesn't. Linguists, far more educated on this topic than you or I, have carried out countless studies on language acquisition that entirely disprove your ridiculous assumption. So you think personally some won't respond well? Well why don't you make reference to something that supports this, other than 'I think'? Or are you just making this up?

I have already told you I was arguing theoretically and not from a practical standpoint at all. Do you understand that at all? I have already said I think it would be very difficult to implement in a practical sense now, but theoretically I would support it.

I didn't put forward any idea. Another poster suggested it and I merely pointed out the advantages, which you have yet to discredit with any sound rationale.

You also seem to have my missed my rather significant post which responded to a lot of your points just before this one. You haven't answered any of my questions yet again. I asked numerous ones on your language acquisition, on which you claim to be knowledgeable.

You might try reading it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 20-10-2013 04:38PM

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Haha. Yeah mine doesn't. Linguists, far more educated on this topic than you or I, have carried out countless studies on language acquisition that entirely disprove your ridiculous assumption. So you think personally some won't respond well? Well why don't you make reference to something that supports this, other than 'I think'? Or are you just making this up?

Statistically it's pretty much unlikely every child will adapt as well as you think they will.

I have already told you I was arguing theoretically and not from a practical standpoint at all. Do you understand that at all? I have already said I think it would be very difficult to implement in a practical sense now, but theoretically I would support it.

Then theoretically, you haven't considered the implications or the interests of otehr people.

I didn't put forward any idea. Another poster suggested it and I merely pointed out the advantages, which you have yet to discredit with any sound rationale.

WHo? What advatages?

You also seem to have my missed my rather significant post which responded to a lot of your points just before this one. You haven't answered any of my questions yet again. I asked numerous ones on your language acquisition, on which you claim to be knowledgeable.

You might try reading it.

I go by my own experience. At the moment, it's the only thing ont hte table. You seem to think that ever child will adapt to a language effortlessly. I disagee. You have presented nothing to the contrary.

I simply do not believe (opinion here, not fact) that the switch will be as effortless as you think it will for every child. Nor do I think it will be as welcome. Nothing you have presented has convined me otherwise.

Peig Sayers

Comments