How to revive the Irish language.

indioblack

Clareboy wrote: »

First of all, our family names are for the most part derived from the Irish language as well as our place names. Our most basic sense of identity is firmly rooted in Irish. Even the way we think and use English has its origins in Irish. The Irish language represents the very soul of Ireland and essence of what it means to be Irish.

Then why can't your own citizens see that?

Interest in History

Clareboy wrote: »

" we " as in the ordinary people of Ireland. I am not talking about any special group in society.

The "we" in your suggestion was in relation to a group that would mobilise the population to a commitment to reviving Irish. So, now, you say that the ordinary people are going to mobilise the ordinary people.Which in he firts place is a bit circular.

And in the second, the ordinary people have opted to speak English.......

Interest in History

Clareboy wrote: »

....The Irish language represents the very soul of Ireland and essence of what it means to be Irish.....

Nice case of 'quasi-religious' thinking.

Interest in History

Cú Giobach wrote: »

...........

All over the planet the speakers of endangered languages are trying to ensure their languages will not die out in the face of encroachment by the world's major languages, and in many there is a growing emphasis on actual revival coming from both native speakers and people who are culturally linked to them but for historical reasons mainly speak the encroaching language.
Now because this is a worldwide phenomenon looking at our little part in this from a purely Irish political (or indeed just Irish) perspective, though interesting and well worth looking into, does not and cannot give a proper and well rounded view of why such things happen.
If you read/listen to the people involved in such revival movements worldwide the reasons become much clearer.
A good place to start is here, National Geographic's Enduring Voices Project.
We are not unique in this and because today we are very much on the edge of loosing so much after the industrialisation of the last century and the mass media of the last half century, people who aren't even connected with these disappearing languages and cultures are actually getting involved due to an "awakening" and realisation of what is happening.

I feel it is something inside most of us, this desire to preserve the unique, special and irreplaceable that sadly, often only becomes apparent when we actually get to the very edge, which although results in the saving of much, means we also loose a lot, and our small part in all this just seem to be a natural human response, and not some "quasi-religious" movement unique to this island.

This is worth quoting in full.

In response:

Can you relate these general sentiments with the action of forcing pupils in Ireland to sit Irish in the Leaving Cert?

If a nation or tribe has adopted another language and if they have employed their new language for a long time, should their choice be opposed? What would be the purpose of opposing it? Is human experience a clock that can be turned back? And what if the people in question don't want to turn it back?

poeticseraphim

I woould love to speak it...but there is no one to speak it with ...and nowhere

Not like in a real language exchange programme for real immersion..

The facilities are not there to learn


Maybe i can find a sexy Gaeilgoir man to teach me

OOoh please let it be Maolra Mac Donnachadha off TG4

Well ..there may be another way...'Irish is sexy and anybody who is anybody speaks Irish ' .'all the beautiful people speak it'.Try it..high class aspirational fashion mags with gorgous models ...as Gaeilge...what is the Irish for vogue??? Don't let them learn it ...OOoh BAN IT!!

Porn...as gaelige..:D or Pornagrafaíocht!!:D

Something really cool has to happen ...as a movement.. as Gaeilge

Grayson

Clareboy wrote: »

First of all, our family names are for the most part derived from the Irish language as well as our place names. Our most basic sense of identity is firmly rooted in Irish. Even the way we think and use English has its origins in Irish. The Irish language represents the very soul of Ireland and essence of what it means to be Irish.

I'd agree 99% with that. But the thing is that even though I can barely speak a word of irish, I still speak english with an irish accent. I still use Irish phrases etc.. And that will be the same for everyone whether Irish is compulsary or not. The manner in which we speak english marks us out as Irish more than our ability or inability to speak irish.

I don't believe Irish will die out. The gaeltacht will remail. Irish would still be taught in primary school. It would still be optional in secondary school and kids would take it as a subject (Assuming we change how it's taught). There would still be a large interest in it in universaties and colleges. But I don't believe there's any way for us to reach a point where the country is fluent. And trying to make it so it damaged the language more than anything else.

Cú Giobach

Interest in History wrote: »

Can you relate these general sentiments with the action of forcing pupils in Ireland to sit Irish in the Leaving Cert?

There are two (among many more) answers to this..
1. Compelling people to learn a language in school can foster a dislike of the language which can be counter-productive, and though the evidence appears to show this is a short time dislike here, the oppertunity to learn quite a bit of the language is then lost due to a lack of interest. Plus an educational system alone will not automatically produce viable speakers of a language that is then brought to "community use".
2. For the revival of a language, having it as a non-optional subject in the educational system combined with other initiatives is indeed beneficial if there is demand for it, and here there does appear to be demand for it that is actually increasing.
The reason I try to avoid the subject of compulsion, is that after years of thinking about it I cannot decide in my own head between the pros and cons, therefore it would be just a choice of the moment which side I could debate. I could actually do both here, which would just get confusing for all concerned.

If a nation or tribe has adopted another language and if they have employed their new language for a long time, should their choice be opposed?

Nope, but the question relevant here to Ireland is; If a nation or tribe has adopted a new language for a long time and would like to revive another, should their choice be opposed?

What would be the purpose of opposing it?

Wanting to revive a language is not opposing the choice of those who want to speak the "majority" one, for the simple reason that those who want to continue using the majority one will still do so.
I think you will find the situation here in Ireland is actual opposition to those that would like to have Irish as a viable language, not an opposition to the speaking of English.

Is human experience a clock that can be turned back?

If by that you mean, can we take something from the past and make it relevant to today, yes absolutely.
The recent events in London are a great example of that, on a linguistic side the amazing resuscitation of the Hebrew language another and the revival of the Navaho language another.
There is a reason history is taught in practically every school in the land, we can learn so much from the past and not all that went before is worthless.

And what if the people in question don't want to turn it back?

Then don't do it, but again the relevant question here is, what if they do?
Though the use of the phrase "turning back the clock" is quite misleading, for example, there was a time when Traditional Irish dancing a la say your 1960's céilí was considered quite vibrant, exciting and relevant to the time, then after years of stagnation along came Riverdance, the art then became once again vibrant, exciting and relevent to the world of today, was that "turning back the clock"? Or just taking something many viewed as "in the past" and using it to enrich our lives today.

Finally the Irish language is not in or from the past any more than any other language living today.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There are two (among many more) answers to this..
1. Compelling people to learn a language in school can foster a dislike of the language which can be counter-productive, and though the evidence appears to show this is a short time dislike here, the oppertunity to learn quite a bit of the language is then lost due to a lack of interest. Plus an educational system alone will not automatically produce viable speakers of a language that is then brought to "community use".
2. For the revival of a language, having it as a non-optional subject in the educational system combined with other initiatives is indeed beneficial if there is demand for it, and here there does appear to be demand for it that is actually increasing.
The reason I try to avoid the subject of compulsion, is that after years of thinking about it I cannot decide in my own head between the pros and cons, therefore it would be just a choice of the moment which side I could debate. I could actually do both here, which would just get confusing for all concerned.

Nope, but the question relevant here to Ireland is; If a nation or tribe has adopted a new language for a long time and would like to revive another, should their choice be opposed?

Wanting to revive a language is not opposing the choice of those who want to speak the "majority" one, for the simple reason that those who want to continue using the majority one will still do so.
I think you will find the situation here in Ireland is actual opposition to those that would like to have Irish as a viable language, not an opposition to the speaking of English.

If by that you mean, can we take something from the past and make it relevant to today, yes absolutely.
The recent events in London are a great example of that, on a linguistic side the amazing resuscitation of the Hebrew language another and the revival of the Navaho language another.
There is a reason history is taught in practically every school in the land, we can learn so much from the past and not all that went before is worthless.

Then don't do it, but again the relevant question here is, what if they do?
Though the use of the phrase "turning back the clock" is quite misleading, for example, there was a time when Traditional Irish dancing a la say your 1960's céilí was considered quite vibrant, exciting and relevant to the time, then after years of stagnation along came Riverdance, the art then became once again vibrant, exciting and relevent to the world of today, was that "turning back the clock"? Or just taking something many viewed as "in the past" and using it to enrich our lives today.

Finally the Irish language is not in or from the past any more than any other language living today.

I'd have thought Riverdance was so successful because it broke away from the past.
The reason compulsion cannot be considered is that it wouldn't work.

Cú Giobach

indioblack wrote: »

I'd have thought Riverdance was so successful because it broke away from the past.

I've been playing Irish trad and folk for some years now, and often for the sheer fun of it play stuff with mates in a "punk" style (al a The Dropkick Murphys or the Pogues), the people who tend to call that "breaking with the past" are often rather annoying purists, who hate anything done other than in the style of a céilí band, the rest of us feel we are influenced by the past, big difference.
I would look on Riverdance as just the continuation of a traditional style of dance that has changed with the times, as much good art does. If it had actually broken with the past it wouldn't have been based on traditional music and dance, though I guess there are some old folks out there who might think differently.
I can't speak for dancing (not my thing) but I do know folk music changes with each new generation as new instruments are added and each puts its own slant on it, we don't break with the past, we learn from it.

indioblack

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I've been playing Irish trad and folk for some years now, and often for the sheer fun of it play stuff with mates in a "punk" style (al a The Dropkick Murphys or the Pogues), the people who tend to call that "breaking with the past" are often rather annoying purists, who hate anything done other than in the style of a céilí band, the rest of us feel we are influenced by the past, big difference.
I would look on Riverdance as just the continuation of a traditional style of dance that has changed with the times, as much good art does. If it had actually broken with the past it wouldn't have been based on traditional music and dance, though I guess there are some old folks out there who might think differently.
I can't speak for dancing (not my thing) but I do know folk music changes with each new generation as new instruments are added and each puts its own slant on it, we don't break with the past, we learn from it.

Good reply, no argument there - when Riverdance was out on disc the rest of the family got the DVDs - I got the soundtrack cds - I preferred the music.

opti0nal

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I would look on Riverdance as just the continuation of a traditional style of dance that has changed with the times, ... I do know folk music changes with each new generation as new instruments are added and each puts its own slant on it, we don't break with the past, we learn from it.

Just a new instruments have been added to the repertoire of Irish music, the predominant language of our culture has changed too.

Irish culture and tradition has changed and adapted with the times. Along the way, English was adopted by the Irish people as their preferred common language and it is in this langauage that almost everyone here expresses their cultural identity.

An Coilean

opti0nal wrote: »

Just a new instruments have been added to the repertoire of Irish music, the predominant language of our culture has changed too.

Irish culture and tradition has changed and adapted with the times. Along the way, English was adopted by the Irish people as their preferred common language and it is in this langauage that almost everyone here expresses their cultural identity.

I think it is quite disingenuous to claim that English was 'adopted' by the Irish people in the same way that new instruments were included in traditional music.
No one was ever beaten for not using a banjo or piano when playing trad music.

You are simply propagating a false narative, surely we have moved on enough to stop trying to invent pleasant falshoods and accept the reality of our linguistic past.

Grayson

An Coilean wrote: »

I think it is quite disingenuous to claim that English was 'adopted' by the Irish people in the same way that new instruments were included in traditional music.
No one was ever beaten for not using a banjo or piano when playing trad music.

You are simply propagating a false narative, surely we have moved on enough to stop trying to invent pleasant falshoods and accept the reality of our linguistic past.

Beaten? Most of the coercion was financial. You just needed English to be able to get civil service jobs etc...

dubhthach

Someone mentioned Hiberno-English, of course Hiberno-English as we know it now is a pale shadow of 100 years ago. Then again the fact that anyone with a stronger hiberno-irish accent is derided for it doesn't help. It ties in with the whole "speak proper english" -- no doubt in 100 years the English spoken in this country will be even more of a mid-atlantic type.

Of course why is this important to this thread? Simple Hiberno-English is heavily influenced by Irish language, both in terms of phonology (preservation of Irish R in say the Cork accent) as well as syntax.

Of course the changes in English have been noted by linguists, people talk about "New Dublin" accent, which is having affects around the country. One term I've heard for this newer more "neutral" irish accent is: Supraregional Irish English

Interesting blog post here:
http://dialectblog.com/2011/04/10/supraregional-irish-english/
http://dialectblog.com/2011/02/02/dublin-a-tale-of-two-accents/

Sometimes I think reason why the like of Cork and Kerry accent are often made fun of by comedians is that it ties into social stigma regarding English as spoken by newly anglisced Irish people. In other words they had perfect Irish but they insisted in speaking in what was basically "English with Irish phonology and morphology" -- this was seen as "bad english" and something to be corrected. There does seem to be a viseral reaction in Irish people to way the "Irish accent" is protrayed in Hollywood etc. I think this ties in with the insecurities felt during the process of anglisication. In otherwords too much of an accent marked "broken english". It's for this reason that Hiberno-English has gradually been dieing over the years. The salient features been progressively stripped out for more neutral accent.

Accents like that of Cork preserve more features from Irish and thus attract negative commentary as a result as it ties into underlying neurosis on how we perceive other's opinion of "hiberno-English"

An Coilean

Grayson wrote: »

Beaten? Most of the coercion was financial. You just needed English to be able to get civil service jobs etc...

Yes, Beaten.

Children who spoke Irish in school were beaten, add to this the prior destruction of the Irish speaking upper class, and as a consequence a large part of the the literary class. The exclusion of Irish from all official state and legal afairs. (It is still actually illigal to speak Irish in court in the North) The dispossession of Irish speakers of their lands, especialy in the east of the country and the plantation of English settlers into formerly Irish speaking communities.
As well as this the Catholic Church also decided to use English to the exclusion of Irish in all parts of the country, Irish speaking or not.
The Final nail in the coffin being the Famin which wiped out Irish speaking communities up and down the country.

Liam90

I started school when i was 5yrs old .I finished when I turned 18 . At the end of it I only knew a small amount of the Irish language . I am not stupid so why can'tIspeak my native tongue. p.s . The 5year old polish kid on my street can speak 4 languages and he does'nt start school untill september

LordSutch

Liam90 wrote: »

I started school when i was 5yrs old .I finished when I turned 18 . At the end of it I only knew a small amount of the Irish language . I am not stupid so why can'tIspeak my native tongue.

An all to common story, so no you are not stupid and neither are you slow, you are just an average Irish person who has gone through the schooling system over many decades only to come out the other end not being able to speak Irish, (English being your native tongue).
As another poster has already said, the Irish language mostly died out during the great famine after faltering & stuttering into a flicker over the previous century, (A great loss to gaelic speaking Ireland no doubt), but I am not so sure if the implemantation of an artificial resurrection was ever going to work in the 1920s/30s, unless the greater Irish population got behind it, this clearly has not happened in the interveining decades, and today we have this stubborn anomaly wherby you must do Irish in school, (not learn Irish), but just do Irish, a subtle difference you'll appreciate, but the chances are you will never speak Irish, or have conversations in Irish after you leave school, this is where the cupla focal comes in, and we all have a bit of that for the craic.

Make Irish a non mandatory subject In school, and then those who love it and wish to speak it will embrace it, and those who don't, let them free to study other languages, French, German, Spanish, languages that may come in very handy when the next crop of school leavers get on the plane in search of work abroad . . . .

opti0nal

Grayson wrote: »

Beaten? Most of the coercion was financial. You just needed English to be able to get civil service jobs etc...

They were beaten not by their teachers but by their parents. Speaking English was seen as the path to a more prosperous future.

The fact is that we are now an English-speaking country and this is integral to our identity. Reverting to Irish makes no sense.

Cú Giobach

LordSutch wrote: »

As another poster has already said, the Irish language mostly died out during the great famine after faltering & stuttering into a flicker over the previous century, (A great loss to gaelic speaking Ireland no doubt),.

In the 1830's the number of Irish speakers is estimated at 4 million, more people than who actually lived in (the republic of) Ireland at any one time during most of the 20th century.
And which was also more people than who lived in cities (or towns over 20,000) in England & Wales at the time (about 3.5 million).

oldmangrub

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In the 1830's the number of Irish speakers is estimated at 4 million, more people than who actually lived in (the republic of) Ireland at any one time during most of the 20th century.
And which was also more people than who lived in cities (or towns over 20,000) in England & Wales at the time (about 3.5 million).

Yes indeed.
I think there's a tendancy to over-state the compliance of the poorer classes with the decline of Irish. The Great Famine was the main factor in its decline in peasant Catholic communities, not mass-succumbing to the penal laws. The west coast of Ireland was densely populated pre-Famine. Our demographic changed massively.

opti0nal wrote: »

The fact is that we are now an English-speaking country and this is integral to our identity. Reverting to Irish makes no sense.

Reverting to Irish as our first language is massively different to reviving it. According to research carried out by NUIM approximately 40% of people would like Ireland to be bilingual and of that only 3.4% would like Irish to be the only language of the country. Approximately 32.1% of people want Ireland to be bilingual and mainly English speaking. http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf

If the majority of people don't want Irish to be compulsory then it shouldn't be. I do think from a pedagogical stand-point we should be teaching two languages from the age of four or younger and from a practical stand-point Irish is the only one we can acquire the resources for. Reducing the amount of time spent studying Irish in primary school while maintaining its compulsory status in secondary seems the wrong way to do things. It seems to have come from an uninformed theory that teaching Irish can damage literacy in English. If students reached B1 standard in the European framework by the time they left primary school we would improve language proficiency in general; English, French, German etc included. I would take the exact opposite approach to the government; increase bilingual teaching in primary schools and when the present infants get to secondary, have Irish optional (at least at Leaving Cert level) and let them do whatever languages they want. This would require improvement in the standard of Irish among primary school teachers. I would actually have English and Maths optional for the Leaving Certificate too; a different story.

Did you know that Fine Gael challenged the policy of compulsory Irish as far back as 1961? I didn't! Interesting stuff here (though a bit long-winded): http://anghaeltacht.net/ctg/altveritas.htm

Much less detailed history of the Irish language with relevant acts here too for anyone that's interested:http://www.iontaobhasnag.com/english/historyoftheirishlanguage.html

Cú Giobach

opti0nal wrote: »

The fact is that we are now an English-speaking country and this is integral to our identity. Reverting to Irish makes no sense.

Says someone who thinks that Irish speakers should live in ghettos where they can live their, quote "traditional Gaelic way of life" and not annoy the English speaking population, isn't that right cyclopath/opti0nal.

oldmangrub

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Says someone who thinks that Irish speakers should live in ghettos where they can live their, quote "traditional Gaelic way of life" and not annoy the English speaking population, isn't that right cyclopath/opti0nal.

I was thinking wrongly stating but seemingly approving of the notion of widespread parental beatings of kids if they spoke Irish was a bit odd but gave the poster the benefit of the doubt.

Interesting idea optional....

Now my own silly stereotyping is shoring up all kinds of images; Irish-speakers rapping "Tá nócha naoi fadhbanna agam ach níl bitch ina measc", Daithí Ó Sé in a bandana....

Cú Giobach

oldmangrub wrote: »

Reverting to Irish as our first language is massively different to reviving it. According to research carried out by NUIM approximately 40% of people would like Ireland to be bilingual and of that only 3.4% would like Irish to be the only language of the country. Approximately 32.1% of people want Ireland to be bilingual and mainly English speaking. http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/OifignaGaeilge/Publications/PDFFile,15645,en.pdf

Well said, two things many are unable to disentangle.



I have only read the very start of that link so far, but due to the sheer number of people here who say "the people have rejected Irish", I give them the following quote, which shows how many of us though wanting to use more Irish actually end up speaking English.

As long ago as the early 1970', in a major research report, the Committee on Irish Language Attitude Research (Report 1975) drew attention to the effect of social language norms on the speaking of Irish.
The norms identified restrict the speaking of Irish to situations in which the participants know each other's language competence, know that each participant wishes to speak Irish and know that none of the participants is a non-speaker of Irish.
The absence of any one of these conditions will normally guarantee that the conversation will be in English.

[.........] Because the existence and influence of the norms has never been explained to the public and no effort made to change them, opponents of the language frequently claim that the failure to convert learning of the language in the schools since independence into widespread use is an indication that the current people of Ireland have rejected Irish.

Grayson

An Coilean wrote: »

Yes, Beaten.

Children who spoke Irish in school were beaten, add to this the prior destruction of the Irish speaking upper class, and as a consequence a large part of the the literary class. The exclusion of Irish from all official state and legal afairs. (It is still actually illigal to speak Irish in court in the North) The dispossession of Irish speakers of their lands, especialy in the east of the country and the plantation of English settlers into formerly Irish speaking communities.
As well as this the Catholic Church also decided to use English to the exclusion of Irish in all parts of the country, Irish speaking or not.
The Final nail in the coffin being the Famin which wiped out Irish speaking communities up and down the country.

Honestly I don't believe children were beaten on a large scale for not speaking Irish. That was a time when children were beaten for anything at all. Didn't make their bed? Beaten. Didn't finish dinner. Beaten. Spoke Irish? beaten. Spoke English? Beaten.

Aquinas said that single parent families were bad because a woman lacked the physical strength needed to discipline children. It was thought that children needed a bloody great smack every so often.

Can anyone here bring up and good source to show that there were widespread systematic beatings of children over hundreds of years by parents to prevent the speaking of Irish? Otherwise I'm just going to treat those claims as spurious and political.

You said it was needed for for state jobs. That's actually what I said. It was needed for financial reasons.

And the plantations didn't discourage people from speaking Irish. It moved irish speakers elsewhere.

An Coilean

Grayson wrote: »

Can anyone here bring up and good source to show that there were widespread systematic beatings of children over hundreds of years by parents to prevent the speaking of Irish? Otherwise I'm just going to treat those claims as spurious and political.

Have you not heard of the Bataí Scóir?
Every time a child spoke Irish in school a notch was marked on a stick, the child later got beaten for every notch.

Needless to say English was the medium of Instruction in all areas, Irish or English speaking, making The state making English the Language of Education obviously further undermined the status of the Language.

And the plantations didn't discourage people from speaking Irish. It moved irish speakers elsewhere.

Prior to the plantations, only a very limited area around Dublin could have been said to have been English speaking, though Irish speaking was prevalant in that area too.
With the advent of the Plantations in the east of the country, Irish speaking Communities were broken up, Irish speaker were dispossesed of their lands and shoved into poorer areas, those that resisted were killed or sent into slavery. In much of the east of the country, what had been up to that point Irish speaking communities were flooded with English speakers who were in a position of power over the dispossesed Irish speakers. Further more, the new settlers were under official order not to learn Irish, or employ native Irish.

Needless to say, this had a major impact on the linguistic makeup of those areas and did quite a lot to discourage the use of Irish in much of the eastern part of the country.

opti0nal

oldmangrub wrote: »

Reverting to Irish as our first language is massively different to reviving it.

'Reviving' is not what the Irish language movement really wants:

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.

oldmangrub wrote: »

According to research carried out by NUIM

That was not an NUIM publication. It's a personal publication.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Our demographic changed massively.

As did our choice of language. Those Irish-speakers have died or emigrated, we cannot bring them back.

oldmangrub

opti0nal wrote: »

'

That was not an NUIM publication. It's a personal publication.

Did you think I was implying that NUIM is some kind of book-publishers.... Research carried out in NUIM tends to be done in survey and research units by academics. It's not infallible, it is what it is; third level research. Make of it what you will, that's how it's generally done.

opti0nal wrote: »

'Reviving' is not what the Irish language movement really wants:

Conradh na Gaeilge would like Irish to be the common tongue of Ireland. Hardly surprising. The topic was ordinary Irish people, not organisations. Most revivalists it appears want Irish to be the second language, not the first. Some 'revivalists' want Irish to be the first language, with English the second (Conradh na Gaeilge adopt this view). Very few want to actually revert to speaking Irish and eliminate English. In fact, there's about twice as many people who'd like to actively eliminate Irish. So if we're talking about ordinary people people in general, the "Anti-Irish Movement" (and I state this in jest to demonstrate the misuse of these labels) express more extremist views than the "Irish Language Movement".

opti0nal wrote: »

As did our choice of language. Those Irish-speakers have died or emigrated, we cannot bring them back.

Well there wasn't a lot of "choice" involved in truth. There is more choice now and Irish has made a wobbly underwhelming revival as a result.
Gaelic culture wasn't completely eradicated. We can still experience that culture if we want to, and we can become Irish-speakers ourselves if we want to. If you think there should be more choice in terms of non-compulsory Irish I'd tend to agree with you.

Again, I believe it would be to our betterment economically and culturally if we became a multi-lingual country, and Irish can play a role that would benefit all of us in that, regardless of whether we want to buy into the culture behind the language or not.

When you quote me so selectively and then write with such brevity I am left making assumptions about your point of view that might be false. Apologies if that's the case, but if you could respond to my posts in kind I'd appreciate it.

Originally Posted by GraysonCan anyone here bring up and good source to show that there were widespread systematic beatings of children over hundreds of years by parents to prevent the speaking of Irish? Otherwise I'm just going to treat those claims as spurious and political.

The tally stick was used by priests and educators rather than parents. I can't verify links but there's a lot on google: https://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=tally+stick+irish+language&oq=Irish+tally+st&gs_l=serp.1.1.0i30j0i8i30.6862.8974.0.11795.14.11.0.3.3.0.142.713.10j1.11.0...0.0...1c.NaPS4pMSEBU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=198b8ece192c4796&biw=1777&bih=878

Birroc

I think we need to create a new thread entitled "How to kill off the Irish language"

LordSutch

Birroc wrote: »

I think we need to create a new thread entitled "How to kill off the Irish language"

Well that isnt going to happen (killing off the Irish language), and killing it off wouldnt help anyone either. But what would be nice would be a re-evaluation of how irish is taught in our schools, and should it be mandatory for all, from Primary school right up to leaving Cert ???

oldmangrub

LordSutch wrote: »

Well that isnt going to happen (killing off the Irish language), and killing it off wouldnt help anyone either. But what would be nice would be a re-evaluation of how irish is taught in our schools, and should it be mandatory for all, from Primary school right up to leaving Cert ???

What do you think of my idea m'Lord? I'm thread hogging.

oldmangrub wrote: »

If the majority of people don't want Irish to be compulsory then it shouldn't be. I do think from a pedagogical stand-point we should be teaching two languages from the age of four or younger and from a practical stand-point Irish is the only one we can acquire the resources for. Reducing the amount of time spent studying Irish in primary school while maintaining its compulsory status in secondary seems the wrong way to do things. It seems to have come from an uninformed theory that teaching Irish can damage literacy in English. If students reached B1 standard in the European framework by the time they left primary school we would improve language proficiency in general; English, French, German etc included. I would take the exact opposite approach to the government; increase bilingual teaching in primary schools and when the present infants get to secondary, have Irish optional (at least at Leaving Cert level) and let them do whatever languages they want.

An Coilean

LordSutch wrote: »

Well that isnt going to happen (killing off the Irish language), and killing it off wouldnt help anyone either. But what would be nice would be a re-evaluation of how irish is taught in our schools, and should it be mandatory for all, from Primary school right up to leaving Cert ???

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

opti0nal

As to the privately published survey, it's a matter of correctly attributing it so that no undue weight is given to it.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Again, I believe it would be to our betterment economically and culturally if we became a multi-lingual country,

I quite agree, but should Irish be the second language? Why not Russian or Mandarin? After all, when times were tough in the past, our Irish-speaking ancestors applied themselves to learning the most economically advantageous language of the time - English.

oldmangrub wrote: »

The tally stick was used by priests and educators rather than parents. I can't verify links but there's a lot on google....

At the end of the day, they would be punished according to how many notches they had on their stick.

True the priests and educators marked the sticks, What it does not say is who did the punishing. It seems to me that we want to blame others rather than ourselves for what happened.

Too often in the Irish language debate, distasteful facts are avoided.

The best way to kill Irish is to force people to speak it.

speedboatchase

Kill it with fire

oldmangrub

opti0nal wrote: »

As to the privately published survey, it's a matter of correctly attributing it so that no undue weight is given to it.

I did correctly attribute it. Everyone knows NUIM is a third level institution and not an independent public body.

opti0nal wrote: »

I quite agree, but should Irish be the second language? Why not Russian or Mandarin?

Well that's the problem. We don't have the resources and we don't have enough teachers with any grounding in Russian or Mandarin. It seems impossible to me. How would it work? Also, the demand for Irish outweighs the demand for Russian or Mandarin however unwise you consider this to be. There is also already a large Irish-speaking community in Ireland, however irrelevant you consider them.
Irish is the most sensible option as well as the only plausible one imo.

opti0nal wrote: »

After all, when times were tough in the past, our Irish-speaking ancestors applied themselves to learning the most economically advantageous language of the time - English.

Times aren't that tough. We're not being persecuted. Our ancestors embraced English so wholly because they were in a desperate situation. This does not mean that they wanted to abandon Irish. We're in a position where we can make choices and it's to be expected that post-independence our decisions change in light of the new choices we have.

opti0nal wrote: »

True the priests and educators marked the sticks, What it does not say is who did the punishing. It seems to me that we want to blame others rather than ourselves for what happened.

Too often in the Irish language debate, distasteful facts are avoided.

Some parents were supportive of the beatings because they wanted their kids to get a "good, English-speaking education." Priests and educators did punish in relation to the tally stick. It is probably not stated explicitly in the link you looked at because it's obvious.

What other distasteful facts are you referring to?

opti0nal wrote: »

The best way to kill Irish is to force people to speak it.

Well it didn't do English any harm, did it?

I'm joking of course. But that's not the same thing, because you can't compare keeping Irish as a core subject in primary teaching with "forcing people to speak it." Or comparisons between those in favour of keeping Irish compulsory at LC with same. A bit sensationalist there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

An Coilean wrote: »

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

Best for the student or best for the language?

dubhthach

I would imagine the only way to bring Mandarin into the education system at Primary level would be to import 5-10,000 or so Chinese language teachers and assign at least one per school.

Given the poor quality of irish teaching in most primary schools there's no way you could trust Irish teachers to try and impart Mandarin (or any other foreign language) on a large scale.

Of course one could argue this ties in with general poor level of teaching Irish, most primary teachers don't have particulary good Irish. They are jack of all trades after all. Best option would be that primary schools had dedicated teachers who were specialists in a particular field. Off the top of my head I can think of:

• Irish
• Foreign language
• Computer's / Science

Assign one of each to a primary school, divide up their working day so that each teaching period they have is with a different class.

Aside from that there's also the fact that elements in Dept of Education are actively acting against the spread of Gaelscoileanna/Gaelcholáistí. I know there have been at least one study which put the percentage of parents who would like their children to attend Irish medium education at 25%. Given that there is about 500,000 children in primary school this would point to a demand for up to 125,000 places in Gaelscoileanna. Currently there is about 31,000 students in Gaelscoileanna.

opti0nal

oldmangrub wrote: »

I did correctly attribute it. Everyone knows NUIM is a third level institution and not an independent public body.

I beg to differ. It's a private publication. Also of interest would be to know who funded it?

oldmangrub wrote: »

the demand for Irish outweighs the demand for Russian or Mandarin

It's an artificial demand supported by expectations of jobs created by the Official Languages Act.

oldmangrub wrote: »

thowever unwise you consider this to be. There is also already a large Irish-speaking community in Ireland, however irrelevant you consider them.

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?

oldmangrub wrote: »

Irish is the most sensible option as well as the only plausible one imo.

Yet you give no reason for this opinion other than it being cheaper and more practical to teach than Russian or Mandarin.

oldmangrub wrote: »

Times aren't that tough. We're not being persecuted. Our ancestors embraced English so wholly because they were in a desperate situation. This does not mean that they wanted to abandon Irish.

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

oldmangrub wrote: »

It is probably not stated explicitly in the link you looked at because it's obvious.

That's the link you gave.

oldmangrub wrote: »

What other distasteful facts are you referring to?

That we're an English-speaking society, that our ancestors chose to speak English and made their children do so. That Irish will never replace English as our common language. That the people who 'support' Irish don't actually want to speak it themselves.

oldmangrub wrote: »

because you can't compare keeping Irish as a core subject in primary teaching with "forcing people to speak it."

Another distasteful fact dodged. You can't learn a compulsory subject like Irish without being forced to speak it.

Language is a tool of a functioning society, not a hobby.

dubhthach

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?.

Going on Census 2011 there is a table asking about languages other then English or Irish used as a Home language. The top 10 were:

• Polish = 119,526
• French = 56,430
• Lithuanian = 31,635
• German = 27,342
• Russian = 22,446
• Spanish = 21,640
• Romanian = 20,625
• Chinese = 15,166
• Latvian = 12,996
• Portuguese = 11,902

Regarding Irish the relevant stats are to do with usage outside of Education system. The break down as:

• Daily: 77,185
• Weekly: 110,642

That gives a language community of 187,827 who at least use Irish on a regular basis during a week in a non-educational situation. Even if we exclude the speakers who at lest use it on weekly basis you are still looking at 77,185 daily speakers using it as a home language. This figure actually increased by 11% between 2006 and 2011. The population as a total increased by 8.2% during this period. So a minimum we can say that the daily language community is at least keeping stable with the growth in population.

Cú Giobach

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours..

Ahh, the true colours show again.
Seeing things as if there is a great rift between the two.
I'm pretty sure Irish speakers are quite relevant to their non-Irish speaking friends and relatives too, and vice versa.

Obair a thugann Saoirse. You could have that on the gates of your proposed ghettos in nice Gaelic lettering.

An Coilean

opti0nal wrote: »

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

These are economically difficult times, hardly desperate. Certainly nothing akin to a million people dying of starvation and another million forced to emigrate for fear of same.

An Coilean

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Best for the student or best for the language?

Best available option, there are many factors to consider, educational outcomes and cost being to the fore amongst them.

Now before you go on some crusade trying to claim that by not making what is best for the student the only relevant factor, I am somehow trying to force Irish on everyone regardless of the price everyone else has to pay.

What is best for the student is not the only relevant factor, Giving every student their own private tutor in what ever subject they like from an endless list of options might be what is best for the student, but no one would claim that that is a realistic prospect, and as such, though it might be what is best for the student, it is not the best available option. Hopefully that is clear enough.

So, if in the event of a re-evaluation of the position of Irish in the Education system, it was found that the best available option was to keep Irish as a compulsory subject, would you accept that?

babymanval

paullyons00 wrote: »

In my opinion, the only way we can possibly revive the Irish language to make it the first language of the people, business and pleasure, is as follows:

All citizens below the age of 30 and above the age of 17 have 5 years to reach an agreed level of fluency.

Each will be assessed through an oral and written exam at the end of those 5 years.

If the candidate does not pass on his/her first exam, they will be given a second chance to pass but at a higher pass mark.

Any candidate who fails the second exam should be stripped of their rights and citizenship and should face a hefty prison sentence.


This may seem autocratic or communist, but in my view its the only way we can revive the language or else it will die out in years to come.

I'd love to hear your opinions on my way of thinking and alternative views on how we should go about reviving the language.

This wouldn't look out of place scrawled in shit on a insane asylum bathroom wall.

opti0nal

dubhthach wrote: »

That gives a language community of 187,827 who at least use Irish on a regular basis during a week in a non-educational situation. Even if we exclude the speakers who at lest use it on weekly basis you are still looking at 77,185 daily speakers using it as a home language.

Are we comparing like with like? For example, are those 119,526 Poles more or less proficient in Polish than the 77,185 people who claim to speak Irish every day? For all we know, many might just use a cupla focal in the morning.

And, let's not forget, unlike Irish, there are no state incentives for Polish speakers.

dubhthach

opti0nal wrote: »

Are we comparing like with like? For example, are those 119,526 Poles more or less proficient in Polish than the 77,185 people who claim to speak Irish every day? For all we know, many might just use a cupla focal in the morning.

And, let's not forget, unlike Irish, there are no state incentives for Polish speakers.

If I was really going with the "Cúpla Focail" then I would have given the stats for "Less often" (outside Education) which comes to 607,460, heck or even the figures for those who just speak it only in education (519,181)

There's plenty of research over the last 30-40 years which put the number of daily 1st language users in the range 60-70k eg. These are L1 language speakers.

What state incentives would these be? As someone who put myself down as a "Less often" speaker (though I do use Irish fair bit on internet) I'd like to know what incentive I'm supposedly receiving from the state?

LordSutch

An Coilean wrote: »

So you want a re-evaluation of Irish in schools, what if after such a re-evaluation it was felt that it was best to keep Irish as a compulsory subject? Would you accept that?

I accept that the current status of Irish in schools is a sad and faded impression of what the founding fathers of this state might have had in mind. I would also hazard a guess that if such an evaluation did take place in the form of a public debate, then there would be massive change in the way Irish is taught, (and I am not talking about small change), I am talking about the fact that every Irish pupil does Irish for fourteen years, then they leave school, yet they still can't speak Irish!!! ergo should Irish be compulsory for all, if the population at large dont want to soak it up?

If the re-evaluation took place and the public voted to keep the status quo (compulsory Irish, but very few speak it) then of course I would accept the outcome, but why would they vote Yes in view of the fact that mandatory Irish for all has clearly failed over so many decades.

oldmangrub

opti0nal wrote: »

I beg to differ. It's a private publication. Also of interest would be to know who funded it?

You beg to differ with what? That NUIM is a third level institution? Or that it's an independent public body? While NUIs are public, I would not consider them independent because they are funded by the Government. So it's a piece of third level research, the government being the main sponsor. I got it from the Mayo County Council site. But you beg to differ and it's a private publication. We'll agree to disagree so.

Do you suspect that the research was carried out incorrectly or altered? Because that's a perfectly valid point to make if you can demonstrate an imbalance or refute it with other research. I would welcome any points you have on this.

opti0nal wrote: »

It's an artificial demand supported by expectations of jobs created by the Official Languages Act.

Irish is no longer a requirement for jobs in the civil service. The Official Language Act was introduced in 2003. I see no evidence that is has had any impact whatsoever on the demand for Irish. If you read posts in this thread that aren't in favour of eliminating Irish completely from the school curriculum you'll be hard pressed to find any that attribute this to job creation.

opti0nal wrote: »

I'm quite sure the Irish speakers are relevant to each other and are nice to their English-speaking neighbours. Is this community of Irish speakers as numerous as our Polish and Mandarin-speaking one?

So while Irish speakers are relevant to each other (and again I'm searching for and am possibly misconstruing your point) they're not relevant to you then? Dubhthach has provided a breakdown of populations above. It seems there are more Polish speakers and far fewer Mandarin speakers (presumably a sizeable proportion of the ethnic Chinese). Do you think we should learn Polish from the age of four? Rather than asking for justifications for Irish being taught in primary school and providing no reasons why it shouldn't, maybe you could suggest reasons for Polish? Again, I'd be happy to discuss them.

opti0nal wrote: »

Yet you give no reason for this opinion other than it being cheaper and more practical to teach than Russian or Mandarin.

Yes these are desperate times, and yes our ancestors did abandon Irish, distasteful a fact as it might be.

Desperate times, but being economically implausible is not a good enough reason not to teach children Russian or Mandarin from primary school? Irish is cheaper and more practical. Seems a perfectly valid argument. Indeed our ancestors did abandon Irish. Because they had to. Do you think we have to now? How come?

opti0nal wrote: »

That's the link you gave.

I didn't provide a link to a particular article, I provided a link to a google search page. I don't know what you read. Again, are you saying that kids weren't beaten in schools for speaking Irish? Is that the point you're making? What are you basing this on?

opti0nal wrote: »

That we're an English-speaking society, that our ancestors chose to speak English and made their children do so. That Irish will never replace English as our common language. That the people who 'support' Irish don't actually want to speak it themselves.

Really? You think these ideas are "too often avoided" in debates about the Irish language? You mustn't be looking at the same thread as me. Most people know the history of the Irish language to some extent I would say. Most people accept that Irish will never replace English as our common language. I don't think you've had a eureka moment there.

Most people who support Irish I would presume do actually want to be able to speak it. Perhaps the number of Polish parents who want their kids learning Polish in school far out-number this 'support'? (why the quotes?)
But you've stated it as "a distasteful fact", not your own opinion so I'm sure you've done research and can provide evidence and links. All I do is make arguments based on practicality and affordability.

opti0nal wrote: »

Another distasteful fact dodged. You can't learn a compulsory subject like Irish without being forced to speak it.

Yes, but I really don't think this bears comparison with the penal laws. I was clarifying my own point. And I hardly think it's "distasteful". About as distasteful as having to study poetry, do algebra or read a book you find boring. I do find your language sensationalist.

opti0nal wrote: »

Language is a tool of a functioning society, not a hobby.

Language is a lot of things, but it certainly is not a hobby. Agreed.

dubhthach

LordSutch wrote: »

I am talking about the fact that every Irish pupil does Irish for fourteen years, then they leave school, yet they still can't speak Irish!!! ergo should Irish be compulsory for all, if the population at large dont want to soak it up?

The average student receives less then 100 hours per year during those 14 years of Irish language contact, is it any wonder then there are issues. For example in the Times there during the week they mentioned that on an immersive language course in the Gaeltacht that a student over a 3 week period would receive as much language contact as they would during a whole year in the school system. In others words someone who went for 4 summers would probably ended up doubling their lanuage contact during secondary school. Now I regret that I never asked my parents to send me to the Gaeltacht -- awh well.

Some language policies have specified expected levels of competence in terms of number of instructional hours. For example, in 1977, the Ontario Ministry of Education in Canada set down three basic levels of competence which may be achieved from second language programmes (Swain, 1981:490). The ‘basic’ level of competence is considered to be achievable in 1,200 hours, a ‘middle’ level in 2,100 hours and a ‘top’ level in 5,000 hours.

A ‘basic’ level indicates that a learner has acquired “a fundamental knowledge of the language, the ability to participate in simple conversations, the ability to read simple texts and the ability to resume the study of French in later life”.

A learner who has reached the ‘middle’ level should be able “to read newspapers and books of personal interest with help from a dictionary, to understand radio and television, to participate adequately in conversation and to function reasonably well in a French-speaking community after a few months’ residence”.

The ‘top’ level, should enable the learner to “continue his or her education using French as the language of instruction at the college or university level, to accept employment using French as the working language, and to participate easily in conversation”.

Summing across the whole eight years of primary school, this more recent estimate amounts to 936 hours. A similar calculation for post-primary schools, based on figures supplied by the Department of Education and Science (2002), indicates that the total time spent learning Irish at secondary is almost half of that at primary. This is estimated on the basis of an average of three hours Irish per week (x 66 weeks) at the two years of senior level and two hours and forty minutes a week (x 99 weeks) at junior level (3 years), giving a total average of 452 hours.Combining the estimates for primary and secondary school gives an average of 1,388 hours.

Now the Canadians reckon that to be able to understand French in Radio and TV you need at least 2,100 hours language contact, given that average Irish student only gets 2/3rds that time when it comes to Irish language contact and that it's drawn over 14 years (as oppose to say 5) it's no wonder that there is an issue.

If we take the hours above at secondary as a proxy for other languages been thought in secondary school then we can say that at most your average secondary school student will get 500 hours exposure to French (or German or Spanish). It it any wonder then that we issues with 2nd/3rd language acquisition in this country.

In comparison if you are lucky enough to have option to attend a Gaelscoil followed by a Gaelcholáiste (there were no Gaelcholáiste in Galway city until 1994) then the following would apply:

Finally, it is interesting to compare the number of Irish contact hours in the ‘ordinary’ school system with the corresponding amount in the ‘all-Irish’ or immersion school system. The ‘all-Irish’ estimate was calculated on the basis of the length of the school day (minus time on English instruction) over the eight year primary cycle and the five year secondary cycle. The final estimate for ‘full’ immersion (from primary through secondary) students who have completed the Leaving Certificate programme is approximately 10,700 hours, a figure which is almost eight times that for ‘ordinary’ school students who are taught the language as a subject only. These immersion school leavers would under the proficiency definitions presented earlier be considered more than capable of functioning at the ‘top’ level of proficiency. That is to say, if they so wished, they should be able to partake in all conversations in Irish, proceed to third level Irish-medium education, or take up employment where Irish is the working language.

Put simply part of issue is simply down to the mediocrity of the Irish education system. Which of course is a multifaceted issue affecting alot more then just Irish language acquisition -- eg. general literacy, maths, foreign language acquisition.

Interesting as well is some of research been done at moment which shows that after the age of 8 that children of foreign nationals generally appear to do better at Irish then children of Irish origin. Why does this happen simple foreign nationals generally have a more positive attitude to the language then alot of Irish people (none of this "dead language" etc etc.). Basically a large proportion of Irish students switch off at 8, this ties into both wider societal view of the language and the issues with teaching it in my opinion anyways.

Personally I wouldn't have any compulsory subjects in secondary school, then again I'd also think we should scrap the Leaving Cert in it's current format, which is just a learn by rote system driven by supply and demand on what courses are deemed "popular" or more important "easy to make money in" (anything connected to construction industry during the bubble for example)

NTMK

oldmangrub wrote: »

You beg to differ with what? That NUIM is a third level institution? Or that it's an independent public body? While NUIs are public, I would not consider them independent because they are funded by the Government. So it's a piece of third level research, the government being the main sponsor. I got it from the Mayo County Council site. But you beg to differ and it's a private publication. We'll agree to disagree so.

The study was finance by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht which i would not call an independent body.
it was not funded by NUIM all information in these privately funded thesis, surveys, etc. are subject to review by the Financier.

if it was truly independent it would have been done without Dept involvement

Either way I'm not getting involved in this thread. the information could be accurate/inaccurate but its worth considering what the best result for the surveys backer is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

An Coilean wrote: »

Best available option, there are many factors to consider, educational outcomes and cost being to the fore amongst them.

Now before you go on some crusade trying to claim that by not making what is best for the student the only relevant factor, I am somehow trying to force Irish on everyone regardless of the price everyone else has to pay.

What is best for the student is not the only relevant factor, Giving every student their own private tutor in what ever subject they like from an endless list of options might be what is best for the student, but no one would claim that that is a realistic prospect, and as such, though it might be what is best for the student, it is not the best available option. Hopefully that is clear enough.

So, if in the event of a re-evaluation of the position of Irish in the Education system, it was found that the best available option was to keep Irish as a compulsory subject, would you accept that?

Not a crusade as such - I just think that education should be just that - education. If someone can covince me it;s best for the student, I'm happy to along with it. But if someone can convince me that it's best for the langauge, then, no. Sorry. Especaily if there are better options for the students.

Obviously, finainces and other factors have to be taken into account, but we're talking about selecting a curriculum here, not study methods or techniques. And one without Irish (or a language) is a realistic option. Whether it's the best option for the student to study as such, or let them choose for themselves.

Of course I would accept it. But I would take some convincing. And as such, I have yet to here a good reason as to how it benefits the student other then the culture/heritage/history buzzwords that people never seem to be able to define or actually explain the benefits of.

oldmangrub

NTMK wrote: »

The study was finance by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht which i would not call an independent body.
it was not funded by NUIM all information in these privately funded thesis, surveys, etc. are subject to review by the Financier.

if it was truly independent it would have been done without Dept involvement

Either way I'm not getting involved in this thread. the information could be accurate/inaccurate but its worth considering what the best result for the surveys backer is.

Thanks NTMK. You appear to be agreeing with me.
As I stated in previous post, I wouldn't call it an independent body because it's funded by the government.