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
The Status Of Irish.
Options
Comments
-
Cú Giobach wrote: »So because the quite large Irish speaking population was in the West of Ireland and other "out of the way" places you can say
"it wasn't a part of the existing Irish identity as nobody actually spoke it."
Am I missing something here.
Relatively speaking.
The question was not whether or not Irish speakers should have been accommodated, is was whether or not the whole edifice of the state had to be formed with Gaeilge in mind. And, I argue, that it was done so NOT because of native Irish speakers, but to further a much larger political and cultural agenda.
It was not because the Irish speakers were in out of the way areas that made them irrelevant.
Rather, they were Irish speakers primarily because they were in out of the way areas.
That they were politically irrelevant, as Irish speakers, I suppose does happen to be true, due to their small numbers and both physical and metaphorical distance from the political and economic centres of Ireland at the time.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cú Giobach wrote: »Sorry marienbad I'm not getting into that one. I'm only here now for the discussion you see above.
No prob, one difficult thread to follow though .0 -
-
Deise Go Deo & Cu Giobach.
Could you answer a question please,
If you except that the language is in difficulty and reform is required , why is it that ''compulsion'' is exempt before the reform discussion even starts ?
This strikes me as odd as I assume there have been many changes made in the teaching process in the last 80 or so years except the element of compulsion.
Why so caught up in compulsion ? Does it not display a lack of confidence in the merits of the case from the outset ?
Now that I think about it not being compulsory is about the only thing that has'nt been tried.
You may have answered this already, but I am late to the thread and it is impossible to read it all and make sense of it.
To summarise, Deise has said:
A) You cannot remove the compulsion because people will refuse to learn the language (see the Irish Language Lobby funded "study" linked at the start which shows that people abandon the language). But making it voluntary is the 'poorer method'.
The majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, so the 'fairer method/optional' is irrelevant. Plus, fairness is irrelevant because people only abandon it to get more points in the Leaving Cert (no evidence could be supplied to show that the majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, apart from a few Irish Language Lobby funded biased studies which were dismantled in seconds)
Aii)
The following quote was offered to show, that actually, wanting the language to be promoted and preserved doesn't keep the language alive anyway!:If anyone still thinks that love of a language or interest in it can
ever be the motivator which causes masses of people to learn it or
maintain it in use, Paulston is unequivocal: ‘…it is always for
reasons other than appreciation of the language per se.’2
People refusing to learn the language does not actually mean people are 'not open' to learning it, he thinks it's merely the syllabus which is the problem, the fact that it's of extremely limited use is of little consequence to the average pupil and their parents, and education is not and should not be about helping people to acquire employment.
The linked Irish Times articles which show over 10% of people doing the Leaving Cert have gotten exemptions from learning it can be explained away by disabilites.
The same article which shows over 50% of those getting exemptions are studying a different language instead is irrelevant because it's only 5% so most people must be open to learning Irish, but it should be compulsory anyway, just in case.
C) The CSO figures which show the amount of non-Irish speakers is as high as ever and Irish penetration has been minimal for 90 years, is explained by the crap syllabus and the fact that the language is lower status and by the fact that there are virtually no chances to use the language, post-schooling, but this 2.6 million people are open to learning the language and want their kids to learn it also.
D) There are actually loads of opportunities to use the language post-schooling despite it's lower status and there are loads of jobs available through Irish too. There's even some company somewhere that operates through Irish and sells program to TG4.
E) Having a language (Irish) force-fed to Hiberno-English speaking Irish, who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages, is totally different to having a language (Russian) force-fed to Lithuanian speaking Lithuanian people who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages
E) If the syllabus were reformed, people would suddenly start loving it, but it must still be compulsory, even tho they are 'open to learning it' and 'they will love the reformed syllabus', just in case they're actually not open to learning it and mightn't love it after all
F) If Maths and English are compulsory, then there is no reason Irish shouldn't be too.
G) All of the syllabus reforms in the past weren't real syllabus reforms.
Yawn...got bored here and all the contradictions are encouraging me to watch Monthy Python0 -
-
-
-
-
Dannyboy83 wrote: »To summarise, Deise has said:
A) You cannot remove the compulsion because people will refuse to learn the language (see the Irish Language Lobby funded "study" linked at the start which shows that people abandon the language). But making it voluntary is the 'poorer method'.
The majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, so the 'fairer method/optional' is irrelevant. Plus, fairness is irrelevant because people only abandon it to get more points in the Leaving Cert (no evidence could be supplied to show that the majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, apart from a few Irish Language Lobby funded biased studies which were dismantled in seconds)
Aii)
The following quote was offered to show, that actually, wanting the language to be promoted and preserved doesn't keep the language alive anyway!: People refusing to learn the language does not actually mean people are 'not open' to learning it, he thinks it's merely the syllabus which is the problem, the fact that it's of extremely limited use is of little consequence to the average pupil and their parents, and education is not and should not be about helping people to acquire employment.
The linked Irish Times articles which show over 10% of people doing the Leaving Cert have gotten exemptions from learning it can be explained away by disabilites.
The same article which shows over 50% of those getting exemptions are studying a different language instead is irrelevant because it's only 5% so most people must be open to learning Irish, but it should be compulsory anyway, just in case.
C) The CSO figures which show the amount of non-Irish speakers is as high as ever and Irish penetration has been minimal for 90 years, is explained by the crap syllabus and the fact that the language is lower status and by the fact that there are virtually no chances to use the language, post-schooling, but this 2.6 million people are open to learning the language and want their kids to learn it also.
D) There are actually loads of opportunities to use the language post-schooling despite it's lower status and there are loads of jobs available through Irish too. There's even some company somewhere that operates through Irish and sells program to TG4.
E) Having a language (Irish) force-fed to Hiberno-English speaking Irish, who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages, is totally different to having a language (Russian) force-fed to Lithuanian speaking Lithuanian people who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages
E) If the syllabus were reformed, people would suddenly start loving it, but it must still be compulsory, even tho they are 'open to learning it' and 'they will love the reformed syllabus', just in case they're actually not open to learning it and mightn't love it after all
F) If Maths and English are compulsory, then there is no reason Irish shouldn't be too.
G) All of the syllabus reforms in the past weren't real syllabus reforms.
Yawn...got bored here and all the contradictions are encouraging me to watch Monthy Python
Ok then, to close the circle, for 80 years all students have studied Irish for up to 14 years and we currently have say 100,000 speakers. ( I know
from another thread that this is on the highside but no matter).
For the same 80 years the major foreign language study has been French ( or any/all foreign languages)but obviously in less numbers .
It must be easy enough to extrapolate the number studying a language versus the numbers fluent year by year.
In a nutshell compare number sitting exam/honours results year by year and easy enough to graph progress
That would give us some idea of compulsion v desire/necessity, would it not ?
I am off to do some internet research provided my methodology is valid ?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cú Giobach wrote: »If any of it isn't true, your post is against the rules of this forum. What you did there either is or should be against the rules.
Go ahead and 'report' me then.
I am at pains to see how, when every single post that one makes in Politics, is a summation of another person's position, that you should take umbrage in this instance. Specifically, that is how one can do so... and be correct about doing so.
Oh, oh, oh, Teamshadowclan just summarised Deise! Report him too!
This is getting silly.
[Why does the 'any' bit of your statement remind me of Shylock's "pound of flesh"?]0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Go ahead and 'report' me then.
I am at pains to see how, when every single post that one makes in Politics, is a summation of another person's position, that you should take umbrage in this instance. Specifically, that is how one can do so... and be correct about doing so.
Oh, oh, oh, Teamshadowclan just summarised Deise! Report him too!
This is getting silly.
[Why does the 'any' bit of your statement remind me of Shylock's "pound of flesh"?]
That comment should have been directed at Dannyboy83 not you.0 -
-
Dannyboy83 wrote: »To summarise, Deise has said:
A) You cannot remove the compulsion because people will refuse to learn the language (see the Irish Language Lobby funded "study" linked at the start which shows that people abandon the language). But making it voluntary is the 'poorer method'.
The majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, so the 'fairer method/optional' is irrelevant. Plus, fairness is irrelevant because people only abandon it to get more points in the Leaving Cert (no evidence could be supplied to show that the majority want Irish to be preserved and promoted, apart from a few Irish Language Lobby funded biased studies which were dismantled in seconds)
I provided evidence that shows quite clearly the negative effects of making Language learning optional and another set of evidence that shows that a substantial majority want Irish promoted and preserved.
The response to this was ad hominum as to the validity of the Evidence I put forward but no counter evidence was ever provided despite the fact that I asked for it several times.Aii)
The following quote was offered to show, that actually, wanting the language to be promoted and preserved doesn't keep the language alive anyway!:
And that has uet to be contested by any poster here. People refusing to learn the language does not actually mean people are 'not open' to learning it, he thinks it's merely the syllabus which is the problem, the fact that it's of extremely limited use is of little consequence to the average pupil and their parents, and education is not and should not be about helping people to acquire employment.
Actually, my argument was that as was shown in the study I linked to in the OP, Making a language optional reduces the Status of that language causing a domino effect and damages the language beyond the area that was originally affected, This was shown by a similar case in Britain where language learning was made optional in one stage of Education and the result was a collapse in the noumbers studying languages across the education system in Britain.
As for the second part, The argument has been put forward that learning Irish is useless, That is not the case, in terms of Employment oppertunities, there are more jobs requiring Irish than any other second language in Ireland,
I also said that I dont believe that the sole or primary focus of the Education system should be Job training but rather should be about developing the Childs mind and ability to learn in a well rounded fasion, a systerm to which Language learning is vital.The linked Irish Times articles which show over 10% of people doing the Leaving Cert have gotten exemptions from learning it can be explained away by disabilites.
The same article which shows over 50% of those getting exemptions are studying a different language instead is irrelevant because it's only 5% so most people must be open to learning Irish, but it should be compulsory anyway, just in case.
The argument was put forward that the increase in people getting exemptions shows that the majority are not open to learning Irish, 10% was the figure suggested for the section of the Student population that this increase showed were not open to learning Irish. I countered this claim of 10% saying that of that 10% only 5% were doing a second language. It is unclear why the 5% that were not doing a second language had the Exemption but I think thaat it is fair to assume that a proportion of them have learning dificulties that preclude them from learning languages. Of the other 5% who are Exempt from Irish but are studying Irish some are getting Exemptions from Irish because they are 'Not open to it' But I think the majority of this 5% are the children of immigrants who came during the boom at the age of 12 and now 4-5 years later are geting an exemption from Irish for the LC as they did not study it in primary school but can do another language because they either studyd it in their own country or are already fluent in the language.C) The CSO figures which show the amount of non-Irish speakers is as high as ever and Irish penetration has been minimal for 90 years, is explained by the crap syllabus and the fact that the language is lower status and by the fact that there are virtually no chances to use the language, post-schooling, but this 2.6 million people are open to learning the language and want their kids to learn it also.
Indeed, People like myself who are actively interested in Learning Irish in school by and large fail to pick up the language in School, The only possible explanation for this is a poor curriculum as Compulsion makes no difference to someone who is actively interested in a subject, As this is the case, someone not learning Irish in school dose not mean they are not open to learning it.
That the Curriculum is poor is evidient and the fact that it has failed over 90 years to teach people how to speak Irish is testament only to the fact that something that dosent work will not work no mater how long it is operated over.
It is not a fact that there are virtually no chances to use the language, post-schooling. There are many.D) There are actually loads of opportunities to use the language post-schooling despite it's lower status and there are loads of jobs available through Irish too. There's even some company somewhere that operates through Irish and sells program to TG4.
There are more jobs and opportunities to use Irish than any other second language in Ireland.
There are however not enough oppertunitied to use Irish to prevent the average person losing the limited amount of Irish that they currently learn in school.
The link to Nematon was just to show an example of companies that successfully operate through Irish, Countering the claim that All jobs that need Irish are 'artifical'E) Having a language (Irish) force-fed to Hiberno-English speaking Irish, who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages, is totally different to having a language (Russian) force-fed to Lithuanian speaking Lithuanian people who reject the language and want to speak English or learn other languages
It has yet to be shown that there has been any rejection of the Irish language by anything more than a small minority of the Irish population.
In light of this it is an entirely different situation, One is a powerful state forcing its language on a neighboring states population against their will, the other is a state promoting the revival of a native language in line with the populations wishes.E) If the syllabus were reformed, people would suddenly start loving it, but it must still be compulsory, even tho they are 'open to learning it' and 'they will love the reformed syllabus', just in case they're actually not open to learning it and mightn't love it after all
If the Curriculum was reformed, people who are open to learning it would be able to do so, Compulsion is necessary because there is a general perception that language learning is hard and languages would not be chosen because subject choice is much more about the points a student can expect to get from that subject in the LC than it is about what the student actually is interested in learning.F) If Maths and English are compulsory, then there is no reason Irish shouldn't be too.
No, Any argument that has thus far been made against Irish being compulsory can also be made against Maths and English being compulsory, In light of that I questioned why those arguing against compulsion for Irish believed that Maths and English should remain compulsory.G) All of the syllabus reforms in the past weren't real syllabus reforms.
There has yet to be a serious reform of the Curriculum, It has improved over the past 20 years, coporal punishment has been done away with, and Oral has been increased in importance slightly, but the critical failings of the Curriculum remain in place. Until they are reformed fully and effectively there will be no change in the results of the System.Yawn...got bored here and all the contradictions are encouraging me to watch Monthy Python
Next time try to understand my arguments before you try to belittle them to others.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement