Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is Irish a dead language?
Options
Comments
-
I'd agree with what marienbad has said and add that I think that those on the pro-Irish side of the debate can't seem to fathom that some people just don't want themselves or their kids to speak Irish and don't think it's as useful or culturally relevant. They don't want people to have a choice because they believe that only they know what true Irish culture is and everyone should have to participate.0
-
deise go deo wrote: »I have no problem with open and genuine debate. So far no one has put forward a convincing argument that shows that Compulsion is inextricably bound up with the failure.
I believe that the poor curriculum is the root cause of the failure, and that reforming the curriculum is the solution to the problem.
Now, why am I wrong in this? Show me why it is compulsion that is at fault.
(without just saying that things that are compulsory inevitably cause resentment)
Hello Deise, We all agree the system is broken . If it were any other endeavour in such a case everything would be up for discussion if a new model was being implemented. It is up to those that believe in it to show why compulsion should be retained as it is such an integral part of the old system . It is not up to the reformers in the absence of any such analysis to justify why it should be removed.
That is what would happen in any other area of life.0 -
I'd agree with what marienbad has said and add that I think that those on the pro-Irish side of the debate can't seem to fathom that some people just don't want themselves or their kids to speak Irish and don't think it's as useful or culturally relevant. They don't want people to have a choice because they believe that only they know what true Irish culture is and everyone should have to participate.
I'll confess I'm a bit baffled by this. My complaint is nothing at all to do with the pros and cons of teaching Irish. Did you read what I wrote?0 -
That is not aimed at you're previous post, I was agreeing and expanding on a previous post by marienbad.0
-
Hello Deise, We all agree the system is broken . If it were any other endeavour in such a case everything would be up for discussion if a new model was being implemented. It is up to those that believe in it to show why compulsion should be retained as it is such an integral part of the old system . It is not up to the reformers in the absence of any such analysis to justify why it should be removed.
That is what would happen in any other area of life.
I disagree, if you want to change the status quo you should justify why, otherwise it is just change for the sake of being seen to do something.
I am asking you to argue your case as to why compulsion is the problem. You can hardly complain about something being ring fenced and then not even provide a valid argument for removing it when asked.
FG stated aim is to improve how the language is taught and to promote the language. On that basis, making Irish optional is the wrong thing to do, making Irish optional will not promote it, it will damage the future of the language.0 -
Advertisement
-
deise go deo wrote: »I disagree, if you want to change the status quo you should justify why, otherwise it is just change for the sake of being seen to do something.
I am asking you to argue your case as to why compulsion is the problem. You can hardly complain about something being ring fenced and then not even provide a valid argument for removing it when asked.
FG stated aim is to improve how the language is taught and to promote the language. On that basis, making Irish optional is the wrong thing to do, making Irish optional will not promote it, it will damage the future of the language.
Deise. you dont even see the contradiction in your own argument. If a system has failed, as this so clearly has, a case must be made to retain any or all parts of it. Not the other way round.
You should argue why compulsion should not be classed as part of this failed system, and why it is exempt from that failure.0 -
-
... I have found little or no tolerance for anyone with a different view and certainly no willingness to even try and understand that view.
How are you defining "try to understand someone else's view"? Is that another way of saying "agree with"? What would satisfy you that an alternative view had been considered?Just a constant hiding behind statistics and surveys .
... you say, as if they're nothing to do with the topic.0 -
Deise. you dont even see the contradiction in your own argument. If a system has failed, as this so clearly has, a case must be made to retain any or all parts of it. Not the other way round.
You should argue why compulsion should not be classed as part of this failed system, and why it is exempt from that failure.
Any change should be based on a clear and logical argument supported with evidence to show why it is the best way forward, There is no point in just randomly changing stuff hoping for the best.
It is a complete and utter cop out to advocate a position, criticize the position of others and then when asked for an proof to shift the burden of proof onto others.
Make your own argument please.
You claim compulsion is the problem, The burden is on you to back up your claims.
Explain why compulsion is the problem, Can you give examples of where compulsion was the problem in other areas, Can show that removing it brought better results. Lets see some evidence please.
I can show how making languages optional elsewhere has brought bad results there. I can show that the idea of removing compulsion to promote Irish clearly failed here in the past.
I can and have supported my arguments with evidence, Its time for you to do the same.0 -
How are you defining "try to understand someone else's view"? Is that another way of saying "agree with"? What would satisfy you that an alternative view had been considered?
... you say, as if they're nothing to do with the topic.
No Leto, it is not another way of saying that. But there is a constant refrain of prove this prove that and at times a dismissive attitude to any other point of view. Bear in mind that it is our children that will go through this system and we are entitled to constantly question why such and such is and is'nt and up to those in place to justify, educate, etc.
Quoting such and such survey saying that such a % agree with compulsion is not sufficient if you have a child struggling with language comprehension .
And you know as well as I that all those surveys have only limited value
( God knows I have devised and participated in enough of them).
But what really pisses me off about this whole debate is the craven lack of confidence this obsession with compulsion shows toward the language itself and the Irish people
Rant over , sorry0 -
Advertisement
-
deise go deo wrote: »Any change should be based on a clear and logical argument supported with evidence to show why it is the best way forward, There is no point in just randomly changing stuff hoping for the best.
It is a complete and utter cop out to advocate a position, criticize the position of others and then when asked for an proof to shift the burden of proof onto others.
Make your own argument please.
You claim compulsion is the problem, The burden is on you to back up your claims.
Explain why compulsion is the problem, Can you give examples of where compulsion was the problem in other areas, Can show that removing it brought better results. Lets see some evidence please.
I can show how making languages optional elsewhere has brought bad results there. I can show that the idea of removing compulsion to promote Irish clearly failed here in the past.
I can and have supported my arguments with evidence, Its time for you to do the same.
I agree with your premise re change Deise, All I am asking is where in this grand review that took place analysing the sins of the past and setting out the road for the future, where are those agruments pro/con compulsion ?. Teaching Methods/Curiculum/Training/ Grant aid / everything I believe was up for review. Where was that done re compulsion ?0 -
No Leto, it is not another way of saying that. But there is a constant refrain of prove this prove that
Rightly so, in my opinion, so far as anything we're discussing here can be 'proven'. Some it it can't. Lest we forget, the exact same refrain has also gone in the other direction throughout this discussion.and at times a dismissive attitude to any other point of view.
As above, whatever criticisms you have of one viewpoint in this regard go the other way just as easily. In some instances I'm sure people have dismissed other perspectives without fully considering them, but it doesn't follow that someone hasn't considered your opinion just because they remain opposed to it.0 -
I agree with your premise re change Deise, All I am asking is where in this grand review that took place analysing the sins of the past and setting out the road for the future, where are those agruments pro/con compulsion ?. Teaching Methods/Curiculum/Training/ Grant aid / everything I believe was up for review. Where was that done re compulsion ?
Evidience has been shown that making Languages optional does not work as a method of promoting language. It was tried in England, it failed. Badly. If Private schools had not kept Languages compulsory it would have been even worse.
BBC news
From 78% in 2001, language learning in England has fallen to 44% in 2010.
Making Irish optional did not work as a method of promoting the use of Irish in the Civil service in 1974.(That was why it was done you know)From Compulsion to Choice in the Civil Service - Spelling Disaster for the Language:
When the necessity to have Irish to get a job in the civil service was removed as an entry requirement in 1974, the number of staff in a position to provide services in Irish fell drastically throughout the entire civil service. For example, a mere 1.5% of staff in the Department of Education and Skills are now competent enough to provide services through Irish today. This fact contradicts the theory that the use of Irish in the civil service would flourish if an end was put to the compulsion to have the language, as purported by Fine Gael in 1974:
"The government is fully confident that this policy change, which promotes encouragement instead of compulsion, will result in increased goodwill towards the Irish language and will help to widen language use inside and outside the Civil Service."
Minister Richie Ryan, 5 December 1974
Indeed, another Minister in the same Government admitted that this failed utterly:
"...I would say that without a doubt Irish was reduced in status. Therefore, in retrospect, I do not believe we did the right thing. And I am very sorry about it."
Former Minister Conor Cruise O'Brien, 24 August 1984
There is no doubt but that there would be similarly serious repercussions involved if Irish were removed as a compulsory subject for the Leaving Certificate, as Fine Gael have declared they will do according to the education policy of the party as it currently stands.
CnaG
Making a language optional reduces its social status, Reducing a languages social status is counter productive if you want to promote that language.
The reason Why
Linguistic experts are clear that making Irish optional is not the way to go.“We could make it optional for Leaving Certificate; and after a few years we might come to think that it should be optional for Junior Certificate too; and after that – well, what’s the point of bothering with compulsory Irish at primary level, if it’s going to be taken only by a tiny minority at second level?
If we follow this path, we may well find that by the end of this decade Ireland has sold its linguistic birthright and staked its entire future cultural, political, economic on the continuing international dominance of English.
On the other hand, we can respond by taking seriously the linguistic challenge of the European project; recognizing that Irish belongs not just to Ireland’s but to Europe’s linguistic heritage; taking note of the empirical fact that the more languages you learn, the easier it becomes; insisting that Ireland’s membership of Europe requires us to make foreign language learning a compulsory part of schooling; and seeking ways of achieving more effective learning outcomes.”
Professor David Little, Head, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, TCD
Dr John Walsh has written a book on the socio economic importance of the Irish language. Contests and Contexts: The Irish Language and Ireland’s Socio-Economic Development.
He has said that there will be dire consequences for the language if it was made optional.Recently he stated that making Irish an optional subject for the Leaving Certificate would have dire consequences for the language. As a renowned scholar of socio-linguistics surely his word carries more weight than a party-political policy that came to life without any substantial research worth mentioning.
Deputy-International Secretary,
Young Fine Gael,
For their part, several Irish language organisations have come together to suggest reforms to how Irish is taught.
Polasaí Nua0 -
Can you be specific, what have I misrepresented?Disregarding the inanities in the rest of your post, Deise has categorically stated on numerous occasions that the position you ascribe to him here is untrue. Yet you claim it on his behalf again and again.
Deise has misrepresented facts.
Firstly he claimed that no one wants to replace English as the common tongue of Ireland. Yet, this is the clearly stated main aim of Conradh na Gaeilge, stated on their website. The organisation represents a significant number of people.
Secondly, he ignores that the use of Irish is in decline in Gaeltacht areas and called on me to produce evidence..... which I promptly did.0 -
Not comparable. You are not arguing in favour of making a choice foreign languages compulsory, as was discussed in the UK, you are arguing in favour of making Irish compulsory, without choice.deise go deo wrote: »Evidience has been shown that making Languages optional does not work as a method of promoting language.
The social status of Irish is decided in the hearts and minds of the Irish people, they have no need of a dictat.deise go deo wrote: »Making a language optional reduces its social status,
Would these, by any chance be Irish language experts?deise go deo wrote: »MakingLinguistic experts are clear that making Irish optional is not the way to go.
the fate of Irish is in the hands of the Irish people, you cannot force them to speak it. You have tried for 80 years and failed. Is it not time you listened to the voice of the people?deise go deo wrote: »He has said that there will be dire consequences for the language if it was made optional.0 -
cyclopath2001 wrote: »Can you be specific, what have I misrepresented?
Was my original post not clear enough? To wit:cyclopath2001 wrote: »... you passionately want to restore a version of Irish as Ireland's common language, to be spoken by everyone.
That is not deise's position (and deise, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).0 -
Was my original post not clear enough? To wit:
That is not deise's position (and deise, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).
I want to see Irish more widely spoken than it is now, with the ultimate(and distant) aim of a Bilingual Ireland, I do not want English to be replaced. I have made this clear on several occasions.0 -
deise go deo wrote: »Evidience has been shown that making Languages optional does not work as a method of promoting language. It was tried in England, it failed. Badly. If Private schools had not kept Languages compulsory it would have been even worse.
BBC news
From 78% in 2001, language learning in England has fallen to 44% in 2010.
Making Irish optional did not work as a method of promoting the use of Irish in the Civil service in 1974.(That was why it was done you know)
CnaG
Making a language optional reduces its social status, Reducing a languages social status is counter productive if you want to promote that language.
The reason Why
Linguistic experts are clear that making Irish optional is not the way to go.
Dr John Walsh has written a book on the socio economic importance of the Irish language. Contests and Contexts: The Irish Language and Ireland’s Socio-Economic Development.
He has said that there will be dire consequences for the language if it was made optional.
Deputy-International Secretary,
Young Fine Gael,
For their part, several Irish language organisations have come together to suggest reforms to how Irish is taught.
Polasaí Nua
Deise, we went round and round the house on this issues either earlier in this thread or on another and I see no point doing so again.
On compulsion the sources you use are either open to question or have vested interests . No one in the Irish language lobby seems to have have qualms over
(I) Having presided over a national disaster
(2) Despite that failure , still regarding themselves as the most competant judges of what is required.
Is that not a strange paradox ? And dont start with the DEPT of E.
It seems the only string to their bow year after year is compulsion compulsion . And crap teachers with 4 more words than their pupils turn out more crap teachers and on and on it goes, and so the resentmant starts until no one can realy speak it but we all ''profess'' to love it.
Same old story yeay after year. I tell you if it was my patient it would have long ago been moved to a different hospital .0 -
deise go deo wrote: »I have no problem with open and genuine debate. So far no one has put forward a convincing argument that shows that Compulsion is inextricably bound up with the failure.
I believe that the poor curriculum is the root cause of the failure, and that reforming the curriculum is the solution to the problem.
Now, why am I wrong in this? Show me why it is compulsion that is at fault.
(without just saying that things that are compulsory inevitably cause resentment)deise go deo wrote: »I disagree, if you want to change the status quo you should justify why, otherwise it is just change for the sake of being seen to do something.
I am asking you to argue your case as to why compulsion is the problem. You can hardly complain about something being ring fenced and then not even provide a valid argument for removing it when asked.
FG stated aim is to improve how the language is taught and to promote the language. On that basis, making Irish optional is the wrong thing to do, making Irish optional will not promote it, it will damage the future of the language.deise go deo wrote: »Any change should be based on a clear and logical argument supported with evidence to show why it is the best way forward, There is no point in just randomly changing stuff hoping for the best.
It is a complete and utter cop out to advocate a position, criticize the position of others and then when asked for an proof to shift the burden of proof onto others.
Make your own argument please.
You claim compulsion is the problem, The burden is on you to back up your claims.
Explain why compulsion is the problem, Can you give examples of where compulsion was the problem in other areas, Can show that removing it brought better results. Lets see some evidence please.
I can show how making languages optional elsewhere has brought bad results there. I can show that the idea of removing compulsion to promote Irish clearly failed here in the past.
I can and have supported my arguments with evidence, Its time for you to do the same.
You have adopted reforming the curriculum as the solution to the problem. When I have pointed out previously that the curriculum has been reformed on a number of occasions over the last thirty years at both primary and secondary level, you point to the recent nature of some of the changes or that they are the wrong ones.
In net terms, the argument you are making is that to defend something that has never been changed - compulsion - you are arguing that something that has been changed - curriculum reform - needs to be changed again. Can you not see the weakness in your argument?
The two general views on this thread are that Irish is either in decline or needs to be further promoted. If you are a promoter and supporter of the language, it doesn't matter which of those two arguments are correct - action needs to be taken.
Two policy options have been suggested:
- Removal of compulsory nature
- Curriculum Reform
One has been tried, one has not. Seems to me clear that if you want to improve the status of the language, the best option is to look at the one that has not been changed.
You also state that it is up to those that wish to change the status quo to argue why that should be done. However, when the status quo - compulsion - has been there for decades and has not worked, surely it is up to those that defend it to justify its continued existence.0 -
Deise, we went round and round the house on this issues either earlier in this thread or on another and I see no point doing so again.
On compulsion the sources you use are either open to question or have vested interests . No one in the Irish language lobby seems to have have qualms over
(I) Having presided over a national disaster
(2) Despite that failure , still regarding themselves as the most competant judges of what is required.
Is that not a strange paradox ? And dont start with the DEPT of E.
It seems the only string to their bow year after year is compulsion compulsion . And crap teachers with 4 more words than their pupils turn out more crap teachers and on and on it goes, and so the resentmant starts until no one can realy speak it but we all ''profess'' to love it.
Same old story yeay after year. I tell you if it was my patient it would have long ago been moved to a different hospital .
Couldn't have put it better.
Adding to the problem with poor teachers is the fact that the Official Languages Act and the EU status achievement (lauded by the lobby groups but worthless in practical terms of increasing the use of Irish in daily life) have meant that the best Irish language graduates now work as translators or interpreters, translating and interpreting documents and meetings that nobody is interested in - e.g. how many English language copies of Sligo County Council's annual report are read? Instead those Irish language graduates should have become teachers of the next generation. If you don't believe me that this is affecting Irish in the future, ask any second-level principal (and I have asked a few) how difficult it is to recruit an Irish teacher.0 -
Advertisement
-
It strikes me that althought the arguement for a compulsory second language is strong and the benefits of having two languages is undeniable, the main reasons for suggesting Irish as the second language is that if we don't, the language will die.
Looking back at the links Deise offered, the arguement was constantly "If we don't teach Irish and force people to study it, it will die. Ergo we must teach it." Surely that logic is very circular...it certainly doesn't provide the benefits of teaching Irish as the second language, outside of "we must or it will disappear".0 -
and why dont you stop quoting parts of the argument that suit you ! you are not seriouuly contending that all those votes in favour of ''pro-compulsion'' parties as you call them were based on their policy towards the Irish language and not on isues like health, education, the economy.
If so you are living in a state of delusion
The argument was put to me that the biggest party in the state is about to be anti-compulsion and that was justification for making the language a compulsory subject at schools. Yet, certain people refuse to accept the argument that pro-compulsion parties have been the biggest parties in every election since the foundation of the Irish state. Sorry bout ya!0 -
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Apparently they only need 40% (don't ask me how I'm as confused about it as you are) to get an over all majority.
The "Irish solution to an Irish problem" bit.
They would claim to be any ethnic group that came to mind just to get out of Irish. So they would certainly have no qualms with claiming to be unionist.
They need 84 members for a majority. That's more than 40% using the PR-STV system.
The Irish problem: dealing with Unionists in an Irish state. The Irish solution: allow them to choose whether or not their children learn Irish in school.
Irish people will not claim to be Unionists in order to avoid learning Irish. That's just stupid, plain and simple.0 -
I've been reading most of the threads on this and it seems that the majority of the comments are from people who don't 'have' to learn Irish anymore.
I'm doing my Leaving this year and it has to be said the pressure of the exams is bad enough without being forced to take a language that is of little use to you in the global economy. Yes, it's great that we have our own language and culture and for people who want to do it or whom are good linguists it's great. But for the huge portion of mathematically and scientifically orientated students it is incomprehensible.
I could be doing extra subject where I not force to do Irish. Instead I must do it and along with 80% of my year I take it at ordinary level. This is paying pure lip service to the language. Most of us couldn't put a sentence together. Yet some of you come on here with high and mighty attitudes about how we should be forced to learn something that is of no use to us and is in contrast to our strengths.
Good on Fine Gael. They're the only party taking the side of the people this mainly affects: Overworked, stressed out leaving cert students.0 -
Oasis_Dublin wrote: »The argument was put to me that the biggest party in the state is about to be anti-compulsion and that was justification for making the language a compulsory subject at schools. Yet, certain people refuse to accept the argument that pro-compulsion parties have been the biggest parties in every election since the foundation of the Irish state. Sorry bout ya!
I think it was the other way round , was it not. Not that it makes much difference. to contend that compulsion parties are the biggest in the state while being factually correct is about as meaningful as saying they are also oppossed to global warming. i.e they pay lip service and do little.0 -
Oasis_Dublin wrote: »You have to deal with these people on their own level.
May I ask what do you mean by ''these people'' and ''on their own level'' ?0 -
Yeah I get it now, another poster already described it earlier.Oasis_Dublin wrote: »They need 84 members for a majority. That's more than 40% using the PR-STV system.
The Irish problem: dealing with Unionists in an Irish state. The Irish solution: allow them to choose whether or not their children learn Irish in school.
Irish people will not claim to be Unionists in order to avoid learning Irish. That's just stupid, plain and simple.
What happens when you have Irish parents claiming discrimination when Unionists are able to focus their studies on more points friendly courses?
And how will you stop Irish people claiming to be unionist. And don't say it won't happen. You don't know all 4.5 million Irish people in the country. Some would throw their own grandmother down a staircase if it ment getting out of mandatory Irish.
You really aren't doing yourself any favours.Oasis_Dublin wrote: »You have to deal with these people on their own level.0 -
Yet, all the arguments and sources you put forward come from the web site of an organisation whose main aim is reinstating Irish as the common language of Ireland.deise go deo wrote: »I want to see Irish more widely spoken than it is now, with the ultimate(and distant) aim of a Bilingual Ireland, I do not want English to be replaced. I have made this clear on several occasions.
You may say that this is not what you want, but you spend a lot of time advancing the agenda of an organisation that does.
You can achieve more widespread use of Irish without resorting to compulsion, there is plenty of scope, to advance from the existing pitiful percentages. The only reason for compulsion, is if reinstating Irish is the aim.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it was the other way round , was it not. Not that it makes much difference. to contend that compulsion parties are the biggest in the state while being factually correct is about as meaningful as saying they are also oppossed to global warming. i.e they pay lip service and do little.
Pay lip service? It's been one of 3 compulsory subjects in secondary schools for many years.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement