The Status Of Irish.

Focalbhach

marienbad wrote: »

I have little faith (pro or con) in any of these studies, they are all to bound up with vested interests.

That's a nice, sweeping, vague statement. I'd be interested to hear what exactly you think the "vested interests" behind that survey are. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot with all sorts of negative implications, but it's just not good enough to say "someone's done a study; it must be biased, so I'm going to ignore it".

marienbad

Leto wrote: »

That's a nice, sweeping, vague statement. I'd be interested to hear what exactly you think the "vested interests" behind that survey are. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot with all sorts of negative implications, but it's just not good enough to say "someone's done a study; it must be biased, so I'm going to ignore it".

I have made the last post in the context of my previous posts and other posts on this thread . Would you agree with my statement the the language project to date, has by any rational analysis, been an abject failure ?

Focalbhach

marienbad wrote: »

I have made the last post in the context of my previous posts and other posts on this thread . Would you agree with my statement the the language project to date, has by any rational analysis, been an abject failure ?

As I said above, I have no real interest in the wider discussion at the moment. What I'm trying to do is inject a bit of research-based evidence (for what it's worth), which people on this thread have been crying out for, so that it can inform the contributions of those of you who are interested in arguing the toss.

The "context of your previous posts and other posts on this thread" has absolutely nothing to do with that survey, so, I'll ask again: which vested interests does it represent? If you don't have an answer, that's fine, but I'll ask you to withdraw the claim you made to that effect in your previous post.

deise go deo

If posters here are not willing to accept that the evidence provided is valid, despite the fact that it was asked for in the first place, then I don't see why we should continue to waste our time with this.

The evidence is there, make of it what you will, but if you are going to question it then back up your claims, ad hominum as to its validity without anything to validate such claims will not be accepted.

marienbad

Leto wrote: »

As I said above, I have no real interest in the wider discussion at the moment. What I'm trying to do is inject a bit of research-based evidence (for what it's worth), which people on this thread have been crying out for, so that it can inform the contributions of those of you who are interested in arguing the toss.

The "context of your previous posts and other posts on this thread" has absolutely nothing to do with that survey, so, I'll ask again: which vested interests does it represent? If you don't have an answer, that's fine, but I'll ask you to withdraw the claim you made to that effect in your previous post.

I am interested in the wider discussion and I think that survey is so broad based as to have limited or little reference to that wider discussion.

Now having answered your question, will you answer mine , would you agree/disagree the the Irish Project has by any objective standard been a failure ?

deise go deo

marienbad wrote: »

I have little faith (pro or con) in any of these studies, they are all to bound up with vested interests. The only thing we can say with certainty is that after 80 years and millions spent the policy is a complete failure.

No, It has been a qualified failure, and it really depends on what you see as the ultimate goal, If the goal was to preserve the language then that has been achievied, It is still a living language today, If the goal is to spread the use of Irish then it has failed, but not completely because the language is still alive and can still be spread.

Now why would you task the bodies responsible for such a comprehensive failure in the past with the job of mapping out the future ?

So who, if not the department of Education should be responsible for it?

Surely if the language is to be saved we must start with a clean slate and set aside vested interests and this kind of historical political correctness that is acting to the detriment of the revival of the language.

What exactly are you talking about, and how is it acting to the detriment of the language?

We might start with realistic goals - the Irish language is never, ever going to replace English .

Yes, but then that is a strawman argument as no one here has argued that it will, or should.

Next we should dispense with the condescension inherent in the ''cupla focal'' mentality. ''Domo arigato'' and ''konichiwa'' are just a few japanese expressions I picked up reading Shogun all those years ago. I am under no illusion I have a cupla focal in japanese !

Where are you seeing condescension in people who have some Irish being encouraged to use it?

Give me 100,000 committed language warriors any day rather than a few million maudlin romantics pining after some non-existant past with their 'cupla focal' !

Right, and if I was to say, get real, that is not reality, those are not the choices! What would you say.

deise go deo

marienbad wrote: »

I am interested in the wider discussion and I think that survey is so broad based as to have limited or little reference to that wider discussion.

One of the central parts of this discussion is weather or not the majority are open to learning Irish, That is directly referenced in the Survey, It shows clearly that by far the vast majority want Irish to continue with the same emphasis in the Education system with a large minority wanting greater emphasis.

marienbad

deise go deo wrote: »

One of the central parts of this discussion is weather or not the majority are open to learning Irish, That is directly referenced in the Survey, It shows clearly that by far the vast majority want Irish to continue with the same emphasis in the Education system with a large minority wanting greater emphasis.

The central issue in this discussion is compulsion.( for me anyway)

CnaG is the body I have in mind rather than Dept of Ed.

The 'cupla focal' mentality justs lets people feel good about themselves without doing anything else.

What parameters do you use to judge success/failure in this project.

What do you see as the goal(s)

What is wrong with having 100,000 committed speakers ??

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which, whether people want it to be compulsory or not is surely irrelevant to the side advocating compulsion. The entire point of compulsion is to make people learn it whether they want to or not.

This is utter fallicly, Of course it matters, I have argued time and again that I believe that Compulsion is the best way forward for our education system. I believe that the best education system we can have for the future is one that has language learning at its core, Hence my advocacy of a 'Mother tongue plus two system. This is the system advocated by the European Commission as best practice.

To not have Language learning at the center of our Education system is to pin our hopes on English remaining the International language that it is today, and becoming a World lingua Franca. This, in light of the fact that English is declining as a world language would be a foolish route to go down, English is not enough. If we want to be an economically successful state in the Future then Languages are a necessary part of it. This will not be achieved if we follow England down the optional route, The Evidence dose not support a system like that working.

deise go deo

marienbad wrote: »

The central issue in this discussion is compulsion.( for me anyway)

And people being open to learning Irish is central to Compulsion being justified.

CnaG is the body I have in mind rather than Dept of Ed.

So CnaG is responciple for the Dept of Educations Failings despite the Fact that CnaG advocats reform of the Current System.

The 'cupla focal' mentality justs lets people feel good about themselves without doing anything else.

Not true, Many people lack confidence when it comes to using Irish, The Cupla Focal, 'Is Fearr Gaeilge Birste ná Béarla Cliste' open and encouraging approch is the way to overcome this and allow them to move forward with the language.

What parameters do you use to judge success/failure in this project.

What do you see as the goal(s)

It depends on what the goal of the project is,
For me personally it is about having an excellent Education System and promoting the Use of Irish in our Society, It has failed on both counts, But I see the poor curriculum as the root cause of this, and as such advocate reform of the curriculum.

What is wrong with having 100,000 committed speakers ??

Nothing, A good first step, But what is wrong with reforming the Curriculum and over time seeing a general Increase in the Use of Irish across the population?

marienbad

deise go deo wrote: »

This is utter fallicly, Of course it matters, I have argued time and again that I believe that Compulsion is the best way forward for our education system. I believe that the best education system we can have for the future is one that has language learning at its core, Hence my advocacy of a 'Mother tongue plus two system. This is the system advocated by the European Commission as best practice.

To not have Language learning at the center of our Education system is to pin our hopes on English remaining the International language that it is today, and becoming a World lingua Franca. This, in light of the fact that English is declining as a world language would be a foolish route to go down, English is not enough. If we want to be an economically successful state in the Future then Languages are a necessary part of it. This will not be achieved if we follow England down the optional route, The Evidence dose not support a system like that working.

Deise go deo, I think this is the end of the line for me, despite our language revival movement being a complete failure you still advocate the use of compulsion ,which has been at the core of that failure. You are not even willing to discuss or contemplate any other option.

The continuous references to surveys is really rather meaningless for a number of reasons , but I am concerned with only one . They are a measure of what people want , not a measure of what we need.

Nobody is debating the value of language learning per se , it just dos'nt have to be centered on Irish or compulsion.

As for your doomday scenario of English not being the dominant language, I dont see any danger of that in our lifetimes or any particular relevance to this debate.

deise go deo

marienbad wrote: »

Deise go deo, I think this is the end of the line for me, despite our language revival movement being a complete failure you still advocate the use of compulsion ,which has been at the core of that failure. You are not even willing to discuss or contemplate any other option.

You claim that compulsion has been at the core of the Failure, Yet you dont back up the claim, Simply more of the same.:rolleyes:


I have put forward several arguments for why the failure has been caused by the poor curriculum,

Why is Compulsion the Root of the Failure? Explain why it is.

astrofool

English is declining as a world language? Within a generation there will be more chinese speaking English than there is in the rest of the world (effectively doubling the number of English speakers). It is THE international language.

However, the number of Irish speakers will likely decline during the same period.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

And people being open to learning Irish is central to Compulsion being justified.

If people are 'open to Irish' they do not need to be compelled to learn it.

deise go deo wrote: »

One of the central parts of this discussion is weather or not the majority are open to learning Irish, That is directly referenced in the Survey, It shows clearly that by far the vast majority want Irish to continue with the same emphasis in the Education system with a large minority wanting greater emphasis.

Only a small minority of those surveyed were in education. So it would be more correct to say that the majority were open to other people learning Irish. This is consistent with surveys that show much goodwill towards the Irish language but a massive unwillingness to learn to speak it.

deise go deo wrote: »

No, It has been a qualified failure, and it really depends on what you see as the ultimate goal, If the goal was to preserve the language then that has been achievied, It is still a living language today, If the goal is to spread the use of Irish then it has failed, but not completely because the language is still alive and can still be spread.

Wrong way around. You must demonstrate that compulsion has preserved the langauge. You must show what are the advantages of compelling people to speak Irish.

deise go deo wrote: »

the Irish language is never, ever going to replace English .

Yes, but then that is a strawman argument as no one here has argued that it will, or should.

From your very first post, which started this thread, you have been pushing the official CnaG line. Central to CnaG's raison d'etre is the supplanting of English with Irish as the common tongue of Ireland.

Conradh na Gaeilge is the democratic forum for the Irish-speaking community and promotes the language throughout the whole of Ireland and around the world. Is main aim is to reinstate the Irish language as the common tongue of Ireland.

This is the reason for compulsion.

RandomName2

deise go deo wrote: »

This is utter fallicly, Of course it matters, I have argued time and again that I believe that Compulsion is the best way forward for our education system. I believe that the best education system we can have for the future is one that has language learning at its core, Hence my advocacy of a 'Mother tongue plus two system. This is the system advocated by the European Commission as best practice.

To not have Language learning at the center of our Education system is to pin our hopes on English remaining the International language that it is today, and becoming a World lingua Franca. This, in light of the fact that English is declining as a world language would be a foolish route to go down, English is not enough. If we want to be an economically successful state in the Future then Languages are a necessary part of it. This will not be achieved if we follow England down the optional route, The Evidence dose not support a system like that working.

You cannot argue, from a logical position, that is important what people think, yet advocate a system which specifically dismisses what they think.

Besides which *I think*... oddly enough... that you are identifying Irish as the mother tongue and not English. If you weren't, then the specific nature of the 'other two languages' would be up to the individual, surely?

Or individual's parents if we are talking about early primary school.

Besides which, I think that the Commission's assessment was in the general European sense that a native language may only be useful locally (Czech. for instance) and that learning a useful international language (such as English or French) should be encouraged. Aren't we blessed that our prime language also happens to be the most currently useful in the world?

---

I am not terribly sure what English model you are referring to... the A levels? Well, the main problem with the levels is how few subjects are sat by any individual student. That would naturally tend to exclude languages... and copious other useful material for an aspiring student.

Enkidu

astrofool wrote: »

Within a generation there will be more chinese speaking English than there is in the rest of the world (effectively doubling the number of English speakers).

This point of view also came up in a similar thread in after hours. Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that China will generate so many English speakers in a single generation.

Yang, Jian (2006), English Today 22 (2): 3-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266078406002021

The paper above is quite lenient and places the number of English speakers in China at ten million. To match first language English speakers this would have to increase to four hundred million, a 4,000% increase.

Enkidu

marienbad wrote: »

What is wrong with having 100,000 committed speakers ??

I think that's a good point. If there were a 100,000 speakers who spoke it well, without compulsion, I don't think there would be anything wrong with that.

Focalbhach

marienbad wrote: »

I am interested in the wider discussion and I think that survey is so broad based as to have limited or little reference to that wider discussion.

In other words, you don't actually think that there were any "vested interests" involved in that survey. You just don't think that the conclusions are particularly relevant.

The second point could be argued, but I'll leave that to others. Try to say what you mean in future, rather than wilfully smearing the evidence that is put to you.

Lord TSC

Ah, internet discussions. I'm so glad I spent an hour typing out that massive big reply, attempting to critique and further this discussion, on page 35, only to be completly ignored...

I guess I'll take it as a compliment though and as a proof that the answers could not be provided. Instead, maybe I'll just copy and paste something from page 2 so we can keep running around in the circles which we have worn deep into the ground at this stage...

RandomName2

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Ah, internet discussions. I'm so glad I spent an hour typing out that massive big reply, attempting to critique and further this discussion, on page 35, only to be completly ignored...

I guess I'll take it as a compliment though and as a proof that the answers could not be provided. Instead, maybe I'll just copy and paste something from page 2 so we can keep running around in the circles which we have worn deep into the ground at this stage...

I sort of agree with you... at least in terms of the same statements cropping up (the dead-end concerning China learning English could go on for months )

But I think the OP has been conclusively dismantled - at least in terms of the compulsory nature of the subject of Irish specifically - and on umpteen levels.

On the greater issue of the way in which Irish is taught, and other languages, there is much to discuss. Also the issue about whether or not any subject should be compulsory, or for how long certain subjects should be compulsory (althliugh you can take libertarianism to the fair, I suppose ).

But I don't think this particular thread will reach those waters whilst there is the cyclical nature of:

Pro: Compulsory!
Anti: Why?
Pro: Nationalism.
Anti: What's that?
Pro: Irish language!
Anti: How did you figure that out?
Pro: It's called Irish!
Anti: I'm 'Irish' and I didn't like Irish or... ever use it.
Pro: Well, sucks to be you.
Anti: I would have liked a choice in the matter, and I think others should have too.
Pro: But that would mean... it wouldn't be compulsory!
Anti: Well why should it be?
Pro: Nationalism.
Anti: What's that?
Pro: Irish!

...

Enkidu

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Ah, internet discussions. I'm so glad I spent an hour typing out that massive big reply, attempting to critique and further this discussion, on page 35, only to be completly ignored...

I guess I'll take it as a compliment though and as a proof that the answers could not be provided. Instead, maybe I'll just copy and paste something from page 2 so we can keep running around in the circles which we have worn deep into the ground at this stage...

I'm a learner of Irish and on your points about making the language optional I'd agree with you.

The only part I'd disagree with is the section about literature and the literature being preserved through translation (even the Christians and Bible part), but that's not the topic of this thread.

Focalbhach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Ah, internet discussions. I'm so glad I spent an hour typing out that massive big reply, attempting to critique and further this discussion, on page 35, only to be completly ignored...

I know the feeling! If it helps, I did read your post, which contains some well-made points.

deise go deo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Pro: Compulsory!
Anti: Why?
Pro: Nationalism.
Anti: What's that?
Pro: Irish language!
Anti: How did you figure that out?
Pro: It's called Irish!
Anti: I'm 'Irish' and I didn't like Irish or... ever use it.
Pro: Well, sucks to be you.
Anti: I would have liked a choice in the matter, and I think others should have too.
Pro: But that would mean... it wouldn't be compulsory!
Anti: Well why should it be?
Pro: Nationalism.
Anti: What's that?
Pro: Irish!

...

Pro: The best possible education system achievable.

marienbad

Leto wrote: »

In other words, you don't actually think that there were any "vested interests" involved in that survey. You just don't think that the conclusions are particularly relevant.

The second point could be argued, but I'll leave that to others. Try to say what you mean in future, rather than wilfully smearing the evidence that is put to you.

Sorry Leto, I do think there are vested interests in all these surveys, and I dont think they are particularly relevant to the issue of compulsion . They are surveys in relation to a failed system whereas we are discussing a potential new system. If you want to discuss it fine ,but it is just a tangent to me at this point.

I am not dismissing surveys as such, but on this particular subject I believe they are so politicised from the outset as to be open to question.

ShooterSF

deise go deo wrote: »

Pro: The best possible education system achievable.

Really?

I know I'm late to this discussion but as a teen I had zero interest in languages or fairy tales yet I spent many hours studying mandatory Irish (which I was never going to use) mandatory Religion (which I already disagreed with) and "optional" French (which I hated but might need for Uni). At the time I loved Science (and Math), I kept on Physics but couldn't do Chemistry or Biology as my time-table was full.
Here is a student with a desire to learn subjects they can't because they're being made learn something they don't want to and trust me you don't really learn unless you want to. And today? I still love Science and still hold contempt towards an education system that tried to force me down a different path and yet I have also started to desire another language! I have started to learn a little German in my own free time and probably learnt more in a few weeks than all my remaining knowledge of Irish. I'd probably even return to Irish if such a bad initial taste wasn't left in my mouth.

The best possible education system is one that teaches the basics and then opens up it's choices to the students.

astrofool

Enkidu wrote: »

This point of view also came up in a similar thread in after hours. Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that China will generate so many English speakers in a single generation.

Yang, Jian (2006), English Today 22 (2): 3-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266078406002021

The paper above is quite lenient and places the number of English speakers in China at ten million. To match first language English speakers this would have to increase to four hundred million, a 4,000% increase.

Do a search for: "more english speakers in china" lots of information on various sites.

They estimate it's growing at a rate of 20million per year, so within 20 years they'll match 400m (assuming linear growth via the education system, which would only change if less people attended school).

Focalbhach

marienbad wrote: »

I am not dismissing surveys as such, but on this particular subject I believe they are so politicised from the outset as to be open to question.

The survey in question was about much more than 'this particular subject'. Irish was just one of many topics raised.

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry Leto, I do think there are vested interests in all these surveys, and I dont think they are particularly relevant to the issue of compulsion . They are surveys in relation to a failed system whereas we are discussing a potential new system. If you want to discuss it fine ,but it is just a tangent to me at this point.

But you are right - this is just a side-track at this point so this will be my final reply unless some new information is forthcoming.

Throughout this thread people on both sides have been making claims for what people want, and what people think. This survey gives some information to inform that debate - not as much as we might like, but more than we had before. You say there are vested interests in the survey. Name and shame them. If you can't, stop making the claim, stop implying bias, and take the results at face value.

astrofool

deise go deo wrote: »

Pro: The best possible education system achievable.

The best possible education system would likely be English + 2 of (German/French/chinese/spanish/japanese).

You never answered my question earlier Deise. If you're self admittedly, not fluent as gaeilge, why do you expect the rest of the country to be?

marienbad

Leto wrote: »

The survey in question was about much more than 'this particular subject'. Irish was just one of many topics raised.



But you are right - this is just a side-track at this point so this will be my final reply unless some new information is forthcoming.

Throughout this thread people on both sides have been making claims for what people want, and what people think. This survey gives some information to inform that debate - not as much as we might like, but more than we had before. You say there are vested interests in the survey. Name and shame them. If you can't, stop making the claim, stop implying bias, and take the results at face value.

Leto, I have not made use of any surveys in my arguments , The only external documents I used were the leaving cert exam results 2010. I am not denying the validity of this particular survey and I did read it and I did realize it was about more that just Irish, but as I say it is not germane to the my issues in this debate.

If you want to debate the politicised nature or otherwise of some or all surveys , no prob, lets open a separate thread .

Lord TSC

deise go deo wrote: »

Pro: The best possible education system achievable.

Best to who? To you? Not to me, and presumably not to a lot of others.

We will all measure what the "best" system would entail differently. To me, the best education system possible is one which will help my kid grow as a person but also place them in the best possible position following the completion of said system. To me, the best position is one where they will be able to communicate with the largest number of people possible and allow them to operate on a global scale. One which is aware of the past but focuses on the future and realises their potential on a scale which will allow them to compete globally for success.

It really shocks me you'd make a statement like that, tbh. Up until now, you seem to have been making statements which, although I disagree with, I could respect where you were coming from and understand your view point. But to claim that the best possible education system is one where people are forced to learn a language which will only be useful (at absolute most) in one small country as opposed to giving them a chance to expand their horizons and be capable of operating with numerous countries and millions of people is bizarre, to be kind.