More Irish language wishful thinking

ishmael whale · 21-01-2005 11:47am #1

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/01/20/story185564.html

“Survey finds wide support for Irish-speaking youth radio
20/01/2005

A survey conducted for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has revealed widespread support for Irish language radio services targeted at young people. Announcing the results of the study today, Gaeltacht Affairs Minister Eamon Ó Cuív said 75% of the 1,200 people surveyed expressed support for an Irish language radio station dedicated solely to young people. 3.4% of respondents said they listened to Irish language radio daily, while 25% said they listened to it on a less frequent basis. Mr Ó Cuív claimed the survey "shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Irish public supports the work that the Government is doing" to improve the range of services available to Irish speakers.”

I know that soundbite is more important than reality, but I really don’t see how anyone has the brass neck to overlook the inherent inconsistency of 75% of the 1,200 people surveyed expressing support for an Irish language radio station dedicated solely to young people, but only 3.4% saying they actually listen to Irish language radio themselves on a regular basis. It sounds like 71.6% of people are saying they think Irish language radio is a great idea so long as they don’t need to listen to it themselves too often, if at all.

Putting it another way, the survey suggests that 96.6% of respondents have no intention of listening to Irish language radio on a daily basis, and 71.6% have no intention of listening to it at all. This hardly supports a conclusion that “beyond a shadow of a doubt […] the Irish public supports the work that the Government is doing" to improve the range of services available to Irish speakers. (Nor does it mean the public oppose it. But the survey simple confirms the high level of apathy that Irish people typically have about the Irish language.)

Can it be suggested that it we want an indication of whether we need a youth oriented Irish language station the key question is how many young people are actually going to listen to such a service. They might then do a reality check, noting how Radio Na Gaeltachta seems to be broadcasting to the ether and doesn’t even seem to feature in listenership statistics. Even RTE’s annual report seems to draw a discrete veil over their market share, which presumably means its less that Lyric FM’s 1%. Which suggests that the 3.4% of people who claim they tune in may be telling porkies.

http://www.medialive.ie/Radio/listenership.html
http://www.rte.ie/about/organisation/annualreport/2003eng.pdf

This proposal, like the Official Language Act, seems to be intended to combust an amount of state funding in the name of An Teanga with no benefit other than a few pointless jobs for Irish speakers.

Calina · 21-01-2005 12:24pm

RnG isn't exactly youth oriented - I can understand why the average 15 yr old might give it a wide berth. It's not like they rush out to buy Greatest Sean Nos Hits of The Eleventh Centure on CD, and name me a youth oriented radio station that has death notices?

What you are suggesting is that people should listen to RnG for the sake of it, and if they do that, then just maybe they might get a radio station with content they actually want to listen to?

arcadegame2004 · 21-01-2005 1:05pm

My favourite part of TG4 is Euronews and those foreign films they sometimes show. Sorry Minister O'Cuiv :cool:

I don't "oppose" this radio channel but the way Irish is being taught in our Primary and Secondary schools can only hasten its decline as a spoken language. It is rammed down students throats, and way too much emphasis is put on poetry and stories. It should be taught like a foreign language, e.g. French, German, in order that people can learn how to speak in it, not just say poems or write them. It is effectively a foreign language to 98% of Irish people because most cannot speak it well.

The emphasis on poetry and stories in teaching Irish in the State syatem reflects a surreal attitude that behaves as if Irish is as widely spoken as English and therefore people should somehow be taught it like English, e.g. poems and stories. Unfortunately, this is worthless as a tactic for increasing fluency in Irish since it is grounded on a state of denial. The basis for a decision needs to be right for it to succeed in its aims. Maybe our elite believe that teaching it the way that actually works, e.g. like French and German as a spoken language, would be "unpatriotic" in that it would mean implicitly admitting that Irish is NOT spoken by any serious % of people, as well as being an admission of the abject failure of the Irish language policies of successive administrations.

bonkey · 21-01-2005 1:39pm

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't "oppose" this radio channel but the way Irish is being taught in our Primary and Secondary schools can only hasten its decline as a spoken language.

Irish has been taught in efffectively the same way for quite some number of years now.

So maybe you'd like to show that Irish is and has been declining as a spoken language, rather than predicting that it will sooner or later do so. After all, the present/past trends can actually be backed with research rather than just appearing as a bald statement of supposition.

It is rammed down students throats, and way too much emphasis is put on poetry and stories. It should be taught like a foreign language, e.g. French, German, in order that people can learn how to speak in it, not just say poems or write them. It is effectively a foreign language to 98% of Irish people because most cannot speak it well.

My dad asked me a question on something similar over Christmas. It made me think a bit....

Outside English - your native tongue (I assume) - can you name a single subject which your primary and secondary education would leave you well-educated in, to the point that one could say you were "fluent" in that subject.

As a general rule, the purpose of primary- and secondary- education is basically to provide a basic grounding in a wide variety of subjects with two main purposes :

1) To give the student enough basic knowledge to survive day-to-day life (reading, writing, speaking their native language, command of basic mathematical skills, rudimentary knowledge of geography, and so on).

2) To give the student enough basic knowledge to pique their interest in the subjects that they are interested in persuing (as an educational "career" or in their own time).

It is - I believe - neither the intent nor the purpose of our primary and secondary educational systems to produce fluent Irish speakers from amongst those who do not speak it natively to begin with, but rather to give them some exposure to the breath and depth of the language as a whole, whilst at the same time facilitating those who are fluent (or close to) by offering them a subject which they can gain equal benefit from as native-english speakers may from an english course.

The purpose therefore is to give non-native speakers enough exposure that they should be able to form an opinion as to whether or not it is something they would like to actually learn properly...whilst at the same time offering native speakers the opportunity to actually learn something.

Unfortunately, this is worthless as a tactic for increasing fluency in Irish since it is grounded on a state of denial.

Again, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the educational system. I've not bothered responding to most of the content of the rest of the post because its all simply carrying this point forward.

You believe the purpose of the primary- and secondary- educational system is to teach you something to the point of usefulness. I believe its purpose is to teach you enough about something to figure out whether or not you want to actually learn it, and to give you enough information to meet the practical demands you are likely to have for knowledge on that subject.

You argue Irish is not widespread and the flaw is teaching it as though it was. The other perspective is that Irish is taught to you to exactly the level to which you are likely to need it - i.e. cüpla focal with terrible grammar that one time in yoru life you need to talk to a Gaelgor who doesn't or won't speak english, whilst at the same time giving you enough scope to learn a hell of a lot more if you choose to augment your own studies (either whilst in primary/secondary and/or afterwards).

jc

ishmael whale · 21-01-2005 1:53pm

Calina wrote:

What you are suggesting is that people should listen to RnG for the sake of it, and if they do that, then just maybe they might get a radio station with content they actually want to listen to?

No, I’m pointing out that a survey revealing that people in general think it’s a great idea for someone else to listen to Irish language radio is being used to suggest that there is demand for an Irish language station aimed at 15 years olds.

As regards R na G, I’m firstly pointing out that its negligible market share is not entirely consistent with the finding of this survey that 3.4% of people listen to it every day. If RnaG can’t attract any significant audience among the general population, but RTE radio 1 can, then there’s a few possible reasons. R na G programmes might be dreadful, or people might find them inaccessible because they’re in Irish and radios don’t do subtitling, or a combination of both. Now, if the proposal was to change RnaG into a music station aimed at 15 year olds to see if that manages to get an audience, there might be some sense to the proposal. But the survey as presented would not provide any evidence to support such a move. But it is being presented as if it is, which is typical of the kind of blindness that drives Irish language policy.

Arcadegame2004 wrote:

The emphasis on poetry and stories in teaching Irish in the State syatem reflects a surreal attitude that behaves as if Irish is as widely spoken as English and therefore people should somehow be taught it like English, e.g. poems and stories.

While they've improved in teaching methods, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The introductory Irish textbook used in our local primary school is written entirely in Irish. The assumption is that parents will be able to interprete the task the book requires the pupil to do, and will have the vocabulary to, for example, name objects in pictures. This assumption doesn't hold.

Bonkey wrote:

It is - I believe - neither the intent nor the purpose of our primary and secondary educational systems to produce fluent Irish speakers from amongst those who do not speak it natively to begin with, but rather to give them some exposure to the breath and depth of the language as a whole, whilst at the same time facilitating those who are fluent (or close to) by offering them a subject which they can gain equal benefit from as native-english speakers may from an english course.

I can agree that this should be the intention of the Irish course. But, in truth, revival of the Irish language was the original intention behind investing all those resources in its teaching and we seem to be left with its legacy in the design of the school texts used, which still seem to assume that Irish is widely used in Irish homes.

bonkey · 21-01-2005 1:58pm

ishmael whale wrote:

I really don’t see how anyone has the brass neck to overlook the inherent inconsistency of 75% of the 1,200 people surveyed expressing support for an Irish language radio station dedicated solely to young people, but only 3.4% saying they actually listen to Irish language radio themselves on a regular basis.

Given that there isn't an irish-language radio-station dedicated solely to young people, I fail to see where the inconsistency is.

Back in the 80s, there was no cinema in Ennis. If you did a poll back then and found that 75% of the town's population favoured the opening of a cinema in Ennis, whilst only 3.4% said that they actually went to the cinema on a regular basis.....would that not yield the same "discrepancy"????

You go on to equate "doesn't listen to current offerings" with "is not interested in listening to any offering", which is a leap of logic that I can't follow at all.

You seem to deride the notion that people may support something that they have no personal interest in. For example, I support gay rights, but whether or not gays have them actually doesn't impact me directly. Am I wrong to do so? Your logic seems to imply I am.

My parents supported a lot of "improve the use of Irish" initiatives over the years...not because they would gain any benefit from it, but because their children would. You ALSO seem to be deriding that type of logic

Can it be suggested that it we want an indication of whether we need a youth oriented Irish language station the key question is how many young people are actually going to listen to such a service

I would actually say that the key question is what, exactly, this service could offer.

The vast, vast majority of youth-oriented radio centres around the broadcasting of music, and...well...there isn't a hell of a lot of non-English music in Ireland. So is the Irish channel going to be all-english-music with some chat in between? How about no chat, but an "all the hits all the time" message As Gaeilge every three tracks, and the ads in Irish....

In principle, I'd support the notion of a youth-oriented irish radio-station...but I actually can't see one working in practice without a shedload of English in there.....so I would probably end up wanting to say no.

jc

arcadegame2004 · 21-01-2005 2:03pm

bonkey wrote:

Irish has been taught in efffectively the same way for quite some number of years now.

So maybe you'd like to show that Irish is and has been declining as a spoken language, rather than predicting that it will sooner or later do so. After all, the present/past trends can actually be backed with research rather than just appearing as a bald statement of supposition.-

Well, the Census of 2002 did claim that "55 per cent of private households contained at least one Irish speaker in 2002. The corresponding figure for households in the Gaeltacht was 83 per cent.".

But this is just fantasy! As I heard said on RTE Radio1 recently, the truth of this census is just people claiming to be able to speak it out of national pride. It is ludicrous, from almost everyone's personal experience of daily life, for anyone to take seriously the Census findings that over 1 million speak Irish! I could be described as being able to "speak Irish" because I type the following:

Ta me ag imirt peile le mo mhadra.

That hardly makes me an "Irish-speaker" by any credible and meaningful sense of the term!

Outside English - your native tongue (I assume) - can you name a single subject which your primary and secondary education would leave you well-educated in, to the point that one could say you were "fluent" in that subject.

Possible French and German for some people. English is an example. We are all fluent in English. If we weren't, getting a job would be harder. Although Irish is theoretically our native tongue, it is sadly on the way out because of silly policies by our government. The one time I was able to speak a reasonable degree of Irish was after I went to an Irish language summer-school in 1992. There, the emphasis was on being able to SPEAK the language, not the state-sponsored tyranny of having your head bitten off you by a cranky Irish teacher for the terrible treason of getting an Irish word spelt slightly wrong, or a poem forgotten. :rolleyes:

As a general rule, the purpose of primary- and secondary- education is basically to provide a basic grounding in a wide variety of subjects with two main purposes :

1) To give the student enough basic knowledge to survive day-to-day life (reading, writing, speaking their native language, command of basic mathematical skills, rudimentary knowledge of geography, and so on).

2) To give the student enough basic knowledge to pique their interest in the subjects that they are interested in persuing (as an educational "career" or in their own time).

It is - I believe - neither the intent nor the purpose of our primary and secondary educational systems to produce fluent Irish speakers from amongst those who do not speak it natively to begin with, but rather to give them some exposure to the breath and depth of the language as a whole, whilst at the same time facilitating those who are fluent (or close to) by offering them a subject which they can gain equal benefit from as native-english speakers may from an english course.

The purpose therefore is to give non-native speakers enough exposure that they should be able to form an opinion as to whether or not it is something they would like to actually learn properly...whilst at the same time offering native speakers the opportunity to actually learn something.

I don't dispute the need for Irish language teaching to be available for native-speakers. But if it's going to be taught to the 98% of us who, despite what the Census says, speak English every day of the week,then there is only a point to it if it increases the tendency to be able to speak it in conversation. Otherwise it's just an unbearable torture of poetry and long-winded stories that can only serve to cure insomnia!

Tuars · 21-01-2005 2:25pm

ishmael whale wrote:

If RnaG can’t attract any significant audience among the general population, but RTE radio 1 can, then there’s a few possible reasons.

The problem I have with RnaG is that it is geographically focused rather than language focused (as TG4 is). It's a local radio station for the Gaeltacht areas rather than a national station promoting the language.

Even if it was in English it wouldn't attract an audience outside of Donegal, Connemara and West Kerry.

That's a big problem with the approach of the state to Irish language promotion. It discriminates in favour of people living in Gaeltacht areas.

bonkey · 21-01-2005 2:37pm

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well, the Census of 2002 did claim that "55 per cent of private households contained at least one Irish speaker in 2002. The corresponding figure for households in the Gaeltacht was 83 per cent.".

Thats nice. Doesn't even begin to address the question I asked, but its nice - whether its fantastical or not.

Possible French and German for some people.

Impossible. Not only is the complete grammar not taught, there isn't a single piece of literature on teh syllabus. People get at absolute best the ability to use a limited vocabulary reasonably well.

English is an example. We are all fluent in English.

English is not an example. For a start, the question specifically set English (as your native language) aside, so I don't see how its an example.

Secondly, you are not fluent in English because of your school education. You are fluent in the language because its your native tongue. I've known plenty of Irish people my age who are far from fluent in English....because Irish was their native language.

Their criticism of how english was taught, incidentally, was about the same as yours regarding Irish, except that they weren't lamenting the decline of the language....just the uselessness of teaching it on the assumption that the person "learning" it is only formalising knowledge of soemthing they already know.

Although Irish is theoretically our native tongue,

No, its not. Not even theoretically. It is the native language of this island, and is the native tongue of some who still live here. For pretty much all those who do not live in a Gaeltach (and some who do) it is neither practically nor theoretically their native tongue.

it is sadly on the way out because of silly policies by our government.

Given that you didn't bother showing this was the case when responding the the request to do so in the post you were responding to....I guess I'm wasting my time asking you again if you can show - rather than assume - this.

But if it's going to be taught to the 98% of us who, despite what the Census says, speak English every day of the week,

Thats not what the census says (although I seem to recall this isn't anywhere near the first time you've moulded the response to a poll into something which is more convenient to your argument)

Secondly, whats your alternative? Disenfranchise the other 2% (taking your made-up numbers)? Have two seperate subjects (Irish for Irish, and Irish for English)? And should we not do the same to English...or do that 2% (again, taking your made-up numbers) deserve to be doubly-disenfranchised?

Otherwise it's just an unbearable torture of poetry and long-winded stories that can only serve to cure insomnia!

You know...by your logic there is no point in teaching any subjects, as the level to which you actually learn anything about them is equally dreadful....you just seem to be able and willing to close your eyes to it more readily.

jc

simu · 21-01-2005 2:45pm

bonkey wrote:

Outside English - your native tongue (I assume) - can you name a single subject which your primary and secondary education would leave you well-educated in, to the point that one could say you were "fluent" in that subject.

Even in the case of English, few people speak and write it really well - see the large number of boards users who don't know how to use the apostrophe. You're expected to pick the grammer up yourself after primary school. Also, how many leaving cert students of English could be said to have an understanding and appreciation of English literature beyond being able to spew out cram notes?

The standard of French and German required at LC level is laughably low.

Radió na Gaeltachta is a good service but it's not aimed at teenagers at all although I do think it has much to offer for adults with Irish outside the Gaeltachtaí. Who knows? A pop music station in Irish might be useful for kids who enjoy the language at school and might encourage others to take more of an interest.

ishmael whale · 21-01-2005 3:05pm

You conclude that

bonkey wrote:

I actually can't see one [youth-oriented irish radio-station] working in practice without a shedload of English in there.....so I would probably end up wanting to say no.

which means we agree on the outcome, and your only problem is how we get there.

You are right to say that people saying they don’t listen to current Irish language output doesn’t mean that they would not listen to some new, yet to be provided, kind of output. But, to the extent that you acknowledge that the only model of youth-oriented irish radio-station that might actually attract an audience is one that didn’t actually broadcast that much Irish (the TG4 model), I think we can take the idea that there is some pent-up unmet demand for Irish language radio as ‘theoretically possible in a strict logical sense without practical application’ rather than ‘probable’. If you honestly feel there is something in the practical experience of Irish language revival that suggests otherwise, please share.

I’m totally open to the idea that people might support something that they don’t personally benefit from. I just don’t see how that applies to this debate. In particular I’m saying the survey “hardly supports a conclusion that “beyond a shadow of a doubt […] the Irish public supports the work that the Government is doing" to improve the range of services available to Irish speakers. (Nor does it mean the public oppose it. But the survey simple confirms the high level of apathy that Irish people typically have about the Irish language.)” I have a very big shadow of a doubt.

bonkey · 21-01-2005 4:46pm

ishmael whale wrote:

which means we agree on the outcome, and your only problem is how we get there.

More or less, yes

But, to the extent that you acknowledge that the only model of youth-oriented irish radio-station that might actually attract an audience is one that didn’t actually broadcast that much Irish (the TG4 model), I think we can take the idea that there is some pent-up unmet demand for Irish language radio as ‘theoretically possible in a strict logical sense without practical application’ rather than ‘probable’.

I'd agree.

The reason I was disagreeing with your reasoning was mostly because I felt a bit uncomfortable with what I perceived as you linking the need for a service with the demand for it. The problem (should one see it that way) is that of increasing demand....not that existing demand is unfulfilled. The aim, as I would see it, would be the provision of carefully chosen services (hence my agreement that radio is probably a bad choice) to engender a demand...not to meet an existant one.

If you honestly feel there is something in the practical experience of Irish language revival that suggests otherwise, please share.

Anecdotally - I remember when an Irish-speaking club started up in Ennis. The demand was tiny - certainly not enough to justify the effort were one to look at these things from a direct cost/benefit point of view. Within 5 years (rough figure), it had one of the largest memberships of Irish-speaking youth-clubs in the country. It was the provision of a good, well-chosen service which engendered the demand, which in turn created a positive-feedback loop.

This is (anecdotally) why I argued with your reasoning if not your conclusions. I don't agree in the slightest that an Irish-speaking youth-oriented radio channel shouldn't be done because there is no demand. I think it shouldn't be done because I can't see it engendering any significant demand because of what I perceive the necessary nature of it would be. (And if there is sufficient demand already there, then it should be viable as a private concern and the government should issue a license and be done with it).

I’m totally open to the idea that people might support something that they don’t personally benefit from. I just don’t see how that applies to this debate.

Well, they applied to your claim that you'd need a brass neck to overlook the inconsistencies that you now seem to be agreeing could be consistent after all (i.e. that there is some reason to doubt or discount the support of people who don't listen to Irish radio currently, and people who have no intention of listening to the youth station should it ever come about).

In particular I’m saying the survey “hardly supports a conclusion that “beyond a shadow of a doubt […] the Irish public supports the work that the Government is doing" to improve the range of services available to Irish speakers.

You'll notice I didn't disagree with that bit

It most certainly does not support any such conclusion. That would be an arcadegame-style conclusion that "if they said X, we can claim that they actually also said Y which is unrelated but in the same general ballpark"

jc

More Irish language wishful thinking

Comments