The Irish language is failing.

riclad · 31-05-2015 10:21PM

IF you can speak german, french, italian you can get a job in a call centre,
or maybe work for eu company.
Everyone in ireland speaks english.
After school, irish has little practical value, unless you are a teacher ,
or work in rte,or tg4.
The government may spend billions on irish ,
but it cant keep the language alive.
There,s probably more people in ireland who speak polish or other european languages than speak irish in everyday life .
IF half the money spent on irish was spent on computers in schools ,or
upgrading school buildings and employing teaching assistants
we would all be better off as a nation .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-05-2015 10:25PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is everyone in agreement that it should be optional at second level with a big oul syllabus shake up?

Everyone except the idiots who set the syallabus, yes.

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2015 10:27PM

tawnyowl wrote: »

The controversy would be is it the right thing or wrong thing.

Well let's have that debate. I'm 100% sure making Irish optional is the right thing to do, let's drag it out into the open and talk about it.

Deranged96 · 31-05-2015 10:34PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Should be optional in primary too.

Or at least taught as a supplementary subject like art etc. But not as a core subject.

Why is primary different? If it's a national shift, then it affects children of all ages surely?

I now have a mental scene in my head where two four year olds are discussing whether they'll bother with Irish or not :P

No, it should be compulsory at primary level like history and geography are. Learning another language from a young age is beneficial, and all secondary school would carry Irish whereas not all secondary schools have the array of continental languages

dissed doc · 31-05-2015 10:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What makes you think it will decline? English has far more total speakers than Spanish or Arabic. The latter is barely even one language anymore.

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2015 10:52PM

dissed doc wrote: »

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

That's interesting and highlights the importance of Irish students learning useful languages instead of wasting time on a soon to be dead language.

Irish is a brain dead language take it off the machine and it will flatline.

Grayson · 31-05-2015 10:52PM

Reiver wrote: »

Latin is dead. Gaulish is dead. Irish is not.

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 31-05-2015 10:57PM

I find the attitude that just because Irish is becoming less common and may well die out that we should not bother doing something about it.

Does that mean that no efforts should be made to try and prevent endangered animals from becoming extinct.

Baggy Trousers · 31-05-2015 10:57PM

Grayson wrote: »

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

And this is absolutely ridiculous and only drives bitterness with the language. A complete and utter waste of money...and don't even pretend to tell me it's not.

ThinkProgress · 31-05-2015 10:58PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

I now have a mental scene in my head where two four year olds are discussing whether they'll bother with Irish or not :P

No, it should be compulsory at primary level like history and geography are. Learning another language from a young age is beneficial, and all secondary school would carry Irish whereas not all secondary schools have the array of continental languages

Bit strange having compulsory irish for younger minds, but not older ones? Especially considering younger kids are still trying to master english anyway.

Judging from the rubbish standard when they reach secondary, i'd say it's not serving much purpose for them. Just focus more on english and maths.

A shift away from compulsory Irish would have to go right down the educational ladder. Otherwise it's a hollow change! The reason for making it optional is to make room for other studies or more time spent on skills they're going to use everyday.

There is more value in keeping history and geography. Irish is different to them I think.

I would be in favor of primary kids learning a small bit of Irish. Just some basics. But not a heavy focus on it.

It's stupid that you need strong Irish to be a primary teacher in this country. That would no longer be necessary, which would be a positive move imo.

Then just teach Irish as an optional subject the same way we teach french or german - start from scratch at 12/13 years old.

Grayson · 31-05-2015 11:04PM

dissed doc wrote: »

Because that is what it has been doing for years. NO reason for the trend to change, especially as non-English use of the internet accelerates.

In the mid-90s it was around 80% or more of the Internet in English. However, it is now estimated to be only around 30-40% of internet websites that are in English. There have a been a tonne of studies on it, but Anglocentric search or news sites rarely report it, and the typical search engines only index an estimated 30% of the web now.

There is still an ever growing number of websites, but the percentage of the whole in terms of language has shown an ongoing steady decline in English, and steady growth in the others. The Anglo-web-world won't dissappear, but rather the growth will be elsewhere.

native English speakers only account for around 25% of internet users now, compared to 20 years ago when it was 80-90%. In that time, use among Mandarin and Arabic speakers has exploded. Much of it is not indexed by Anglo-centric search engines. We have already passed "Peak English".

In 1995 thee were about 3000 websites. Most were based out of the US.

Now there's loads more but they're in majority languages, not minority ones like Irish. By that I mean Chinese, French, German etc...

I wouldn't say we've passed peak english. Not when the comparison you're making is between a nascent technology and now. IF you want to do that you can say we passed peak english when it expanded beyond the first two networked computers.

mickstupp · 31-05-2015 11:12PM

EDIT: never mind, someone else said it.

Duckworth_Luas · 31-05-2015 11:12PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If we had a referendum tomorrow, which side do you think would win?

A referendum on what?

Deranged96 · 31-05-2015 11:16PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Bit strange having compulsory irish for younger minds, but not older ones? Especially considering younger kids are still trying to master english anyway.

Judging from the rubbish standard when they reach secondary, i'd say it's not serving much purpose for them. Just focus more on english and maths.

A shift away from compulsory Irish would have to go right down the educational ladder. Otherwise it's a hollow change! The reason for making it optional is to make room for other studies or more time spent on skills they're going to use everyday.

There is more value in keeping history and geography. Irish is different to them I think.

I would be in favor of primary kids learning a small bit of Irish. Just some basics. But not a heavy focus on it.

It's stupid that you need strong Irish to be a primary teacher in this country. That would no longer be necessary, which would be a positive move imo.

Then just teach Irish as an optional subject the same way we teach french or german - start from scratch at 12/13 years old.

A language isn't something you can only look at once or twice a week, it needs to be used regularly for competency.

Are we not all bemoaning the fact that you can spend 14 years at school and not be able to speak Irish? In a system where the focus is on spoken Irish, children going into first year would take to Irish well providing they've got a good foundation from primary level.

I remember no primary school georgaphy, apart from Irish counties- and I even had to look up which counties belonged to NI a few weeks ago

but I can remember a nature walk we did were the teacher told us the names of trees, plants and animals as gaeilge

it's a very holistic subject imo. In a la la land were it was compulsory at Primary level with a solid Optional secondly school course, there would be a lot of people confident in their Irish without a need of Further study such as is required with continental language we learn form 1st year.

What was the story with Latin in school in the bygone days, oldies?

Reiver · 31-05-2015 11:21PM

Grayson wrote: »

It depends on your definition of dead. For a brief period Irish was considered dead by the EU. It didn't have enough speakers to qualify as an official language. It became a "Treaty Language" at the behest of the Irish government. This means that all EU publications are translated into Irish.

It wasn't considered dead, it just wasn't accorded working language status. It was a treaty language from the start and you could even use it in the court if you wanted.

dlouth15 · 31-05-2015 11:27PM

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Yeah I can see if being a bit exaggerated, but the main point still stands.

A huge huge number of people who say they can speak Irish simply don't do so in their daily life.

I doubt if people are outright lying when they say they speak Irish on the census when in fact only a tiny minority actually do speak it.

Irish is an unusual language in that it is universally taught in schools but, for the most part, not spoken or used outside of an academic or official context. For the majority of people, therefore, knowing Irish doesn't mean being able to speak it in the way one might be able to speak French.

Speaking French means that one should have some ability to go to France and understand and converse with the people there. Speaking Irish on the other hand means knowing a few phrases and being able to pass an exam.

Knowing French is useful for conversing in French speaking countries and understanding. Irish is useful for getting into university, advancement in certain jobs, a compulsory subject at school. It is useful if you want to teach it, and so on, but generally not useful for getting by in Ireland where English is the main language.

So when people put down that they "speak Irish" on the census form, it is how it is interpreted that is key.

ThinkProgress · 31-05-2015 11:29PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

A language isn't something you can only look at once or twice a week, it needs to be used regularly for competency.

Are we not all bemoaning the fact that you can spend 14 years at school and not be able to speak Irish? In a system where the focus is on spoken Irish, children going into first year would take to Irish well providing they've got a good foundation from primary level.

I remember no primary school georgaphy, apart from Irish counties- and I even had to look up which counties belonged to NI a few weeks ago but I can remember a nature walk we did were the teacher told us the names of trees, plants and animals as gaeilge it's a very holistic subject imo. In a la la land were it was compulsory at Primary level with a solid Optional secondly school course, there would be a lot of people confident in their Irish without a need of Further study such as is required with continental language we learn form 1st year.

What was the story with Latin in school in the bygone days, oldies?

But what about parents who don't see the value of learning Irish for their children?

If they object to the compulsory teaching of Irish in secondary, they would probably also object to it being compulsory in primary too?

They might be better served learning some french, german or spanish etc.

I just don't think it could be given core status in primary if it wasn't a core subject in secondary too.

mickstupp · 31-05-2015 11:35PM

@ Deranged96
In my first year of Latin we covered all of the grammar. Everything. In the following years we did unadapted original texts. But even after the first year, I saw a drastic improvement in the quality of my written English prose. Learning a language like Latin, or Greek, or German I suppose, something with cases, really helps you develop a deeper understanding of how language in general works. After 10 or 12 weeks you're already capable of translating significant chunks of text. After 20 you can handle almost anything with the aid of a dictionary, because the grammatical foundation is solid. After a single year, a Latin student is far more adept at the language than an Irish student after numerous years.

But that doesn't have to be the case. If Irish was taught as a foreign language is, as a second language, giving a firm basis in grammar and understanding the structure of the language, I thoroughly believe we'd all be fluent. I saw a remark here a few years ago on the subject that I think sums it up well. There seems to be some sort of assumption in this country, among those who consider it to be our native language, that there's no need to change how it's taught. We're expected to understand it by osmosis, almost. The thought of teaching it like a normal language is somehow insulting, as if to say we're better than that, it's our language, we must have some sort of innate ability to learn it, and so if we don't then we didn't try hard enough. Not the fault of the system or the teachers.

Which is bull****.

It's equal parts laziness and arrogance, in my opinion. People don't really want to put in the effort to teach it properly. That would require far too much work, reorganising things, writing a new textbook (and it would only require one good one), re-training teachers who are incompetent, setting new syllabuses. They just like to make some noise every now and then, rattle some pots and pans and claim to want to save the language. But there's never any real effort. And I think that's because people are arrogant enough to believe that we don't need to teach it like a normal language, or perhaps that we shouldn't even lower ourselves to consider it on a par with any old foreign language. What, suggest it be taught like Spanish? How dare you! Irish is better than that, because it's our heritage, it's in our blood, our DNA, it's our birthright.

All bull****.

31-05-2015 11:35PM

Ironic that it's compulsory in order to maintain our identity but that the experience of having it shoved down our throats causes us to completely turn our backs on it. I wonder if they stopped bullying people into learning it would it actually be used more? Quite a paradox!

mickstupp · 31-05-2015 11:41PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I just don't think it could be given core status in primary if it wasn't a core subject in secondary too.

Why not? Doesn't everyone have to study science for their Junior Certs? That's not a core subject in primary. Can't think of a single rational reason why Irish can't be compulsory in primary and optional in secondary.

Un Croissant · 31-05-2015 11:44PM

I'm a student at Mary I and some of the Irish students and staff are shameful. The situation there is the same as outlined above. A complete refusal to accept reality and they expect people to just know the language.

That being said, over a hundred people take it a year and it's a case of writing an essay in English and using translating software. A complete hatchet job, and these people want to teach Irish. That's the type of teacher you're sending into the workforce.

dlouth15 · 31-05-2015 11:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ironic that it's compulsory in order to maintain our identity but that the experience of having it shoved down our throats causes us to completely turn our backs on it. I wonder if they stopped bullying people into learning it would it actually be used more? Quite a paradox!

Has it every really been the intention to have Irish widely spoken?

Irish language activists tend not to push policies that would bring this about. Instead they push for policies that enhance the official status of the language. More documents translated into Irish at the EU level. More native speakers employed doing the translations. Continued compulsory Irish to leaving cert.

It is more about serving the interests of existing native speakers, however small in number, than encouraging new speakers of the language.

Deranged96 · 31-05-2015 11:48PM

Un Croissant wrote: »

I'm a student at Mary I and some of the Irish students and staff are shameful. The situation there is the same as outlined above. A complete refusal to accept reality and they expect people to just know the language.

That being said, over a hundred people take it a year and it's a case of writing an essay in English and using translating software. A complete hatchet job, and these people want to teach Irish. That's the type of teacher you're sending into the workforce.

Well now in third level a bit of independent engagement in the language wouldn't go astray, I imagine there's a few Irish language clubs and a language lab?

31-05-2015 11:49PM

Un Croissant wrote: »

That being said, over a hundred people take it a year and it's a case of writing an essay in English and using translating software.

Are you saying that they're supposed to write it in Irish but cheat and do it in English and then shove it through translation software? And the translation software works? Bloody hell I used Google Translate for something once and it was awful!! Where was this magical software when I was struggling at the Model?!?!?!

Iwasfrozen · 31-05-2015 11:49PM

dlouth15 wrote: »

Has it every really been the intention to have Irish widely spoken?

Irish language activists tend not to push policies that would bring this about. Instead they push for policies that enhance the official status of the language. More documents translated into Irish at the EU level. More native speakers employed doing the translations. Continued compulsory Irish to leaving cert.

It is more about serving the interests of existing native speakers, however small in number, than encouraging new speakers of the language.

All at the expense of English speakers. English speakers shouldn't pay extra to have services delivered through Irish.

01-06-2015 12:02AM

dlouth15 wrote: »

Has it every really been the intention to have Irish widely spoken?

Irish language activists tend not to push policies that would bring this about. Instead they push for policies that enhance the official status of the language. More documents translated into Irish at the EU level. More native speakers employed doing the translations. Continued compulsory Irish to leaving cert.

It is more about serving the interests of existing native speakers, however small in number, than encouraging new speakers of the language.

Ah I had never thought of it like that before. So they're really only intent on keeping their gravy train going? It makes me happy that their motives are, like themselves, less than honorable.

emo72 · 01-06-2015 12:06AM

i thought the irish speaking day in the dail backfired big time, when enda used the coupla focail to embarass mick wallace. the language was used as a weapon to belittle wallace. an acquaintance refered me to the "gaelic gestapo" wing of the civil service.

Deranged96 · 01-06-2015 12:08AM

emo72 wrote: »

i thought the irish speaking day in the dail backfired big time, when enda used the coupla focail to embarass mick wallace. the language was used as a weapon to belittle wallace. an acquaintance refered me to the "gaelic gestapo" wing of the civil service.

Godwin's law strikes again

dlouth15 · 01-06-2015 12:15AM

Just a quick comment on the idea that Irish should be taught in the same way as a foreign language.

When I went to school there was no English in Irish textbooks. Points of grammar in the Irish language were explained in Irish in the books. Actual foreign language textbooks could have English explanations in them. A French textbook could have vocacbularies with French and the English equivalent in them but you could not have this in an Irish textbook. I don't know whether this has changed today but I suspect it hasn't changed much.

This used to frustrate me at the time. You could not self-study the language and you were fully dependent on the teacher for instruction.

Irish is taught in the same way as English in schools. What you learn in an English class is not the English language; you already know that. What you are taught is literacy.

Likewise Irish classes in in schools (at least in my day) are not classes in the Irish language but rather classes in Irish literacy intended for pupils that already have some fluency.

This makes sense because, after all, we're Irish and therefore Irish is our native tongue. The British banned it but once we gained independence it would spring back again. It is deep within us and merely needs to be brought out. No need to teach it as a "foreign" language because it is not foreign. How can a native language be at the same time "foreign"?

If we teach it as a "foreign" language isn't that admitting to ourselves that we as a nation freely abandoned the language? Maybe it wasn't that British that suppressed it but rather that we voluntarily adopted English?

But on a more serious note, let us say we did teach Irish properly as a foreign language (I'm not saying this is likely to happen, it is just a hyposthes) then to what end would we be doing so? Where would this language be used? What is the point if when you go down to the shops to buy bread you still ask for it in English?

For example, the thing that makes Barcelona and the Catalan country interesting is that they actually do speak a different language there. Although standard Spanish is widely spoken, if you want to get on there you need to speak Catalan. This would not be the case in Ireland even if Irish was properly taught. They speak Catalan in Barcelona not because it is taught in schools there (in fact it was banned for a long time under Franco), but because Catalan is simply the language of the area.

Maths is taught in school and I think most peopel would agree that it is helpful to know how to add and subtract, multiply and divide, work out percentages and averages. In other areas it is useful to know a bit about the layout of the country and the world so we teach geography. We also want people to be able to read and write and be able to communicate with people of other countries.

On a purely educational level then, to what level should we teach Irish assuming we were to teach it properly? The problem is that for most people, you need hardly any Irish to get by in Ireland. Where you do need it, it is for artificial reasons, and you don't need fluency for that.

People complain about Irish not being a living language but perhaps realistically the only way it will "live" is in an artificial way as requirements for entry to colleges and empoyment and teaching.

The Gaelgoirs may be up their own holes at the best of times but maybe they have a point?

ThinkProgress · 01-06-2015 02:04AM

mickstupp wrote: »

Why not? Doesn't everyone have to study science for their Junior Certs? That's not a core subject in primary. Can't think of a single rational reason why Irish can't be compulsory in primary and optional in secondary.

Then you're not thinking hard enough!

Science is a foundation for many important fields of study. General science is very useful for everybody to learn about - particularly biology.

Irish is a dead/dying language that only has relevance if you wish it to have such. (basically it should always be something optional because it's not essential in any way)

You made an excellent critique on the failings of how Irish language is thought. But make no mistake, it's still a peripheral subject and a minority language.

There is no justification for making it a core subject in primary any more than in secondary. And if you agree with the reasons for making it optional in secondary, then the reasons are no different for primary!

The Irish language is failing.

Comments