Thursday, February 02, 2006
Let’s face it, the battle to save the language is lost
With the author’s permission we reprint Robin Bury’s op ed from the Irish Times a week or two back, which argues that compulsion to learn the language in the Republic is having the opposite from the desired effect of saving it. Instead, he argues it merely makes the language ‘uncool’ and subject to ridicule. It goes hand in hand with Ireland’s monoglot English status, which he claims puts us on a par with Portugal for single language speakers.
By Robin Bury
Despite the plans and incentives, Irish is all but dead. Isn’t it time to make it optional? writes Robin Bury
Brian Fleming tells us that thousands of students are opting out of learning Irish (Education Today, January 17th, 2006). An ESRI study concludes that Irish is “the least popular subjects among school students”. What has gone wrong? Why after 80 years of force-feeding is Irish so unpopular and spoken by practically no one?
Let me explain why the language is all but dead, especially in the quiet, once isolated country places where it was the thriving first language, the small Gaeltacht areas. The truth is that today fewer than 20,000 people speak Irish as their native language.
Reg Hindley, a former lecturer at Bradford University, has specialised in studying both Irish and Welsh. He took a sabbatical year from Bradford to study the status of the Irish and
wrote a book called The Death of the Irish Language, published in 1990. His main conclusion is clear and uncompromising. He states: “There is no doubt that the Irish language is now dying”. In effect, we are now vying with Portugal as the most monolingual country in Europe - but at least in Portugal the official language is Portuguese.Hindley believes the current generation of children who are first language native speakers may well be the last. And remember, all these children speak fluent English. They know, as do their parents, that their job prospects are zero if they do not speak English. Their parents also know that this country would never have attracted massive inward investment if we spoke Irish, not English.
Unlike Dublin 4 parents, we know that the children in Gaeltacht areas think Irish is really quite boring and certainly not cool. But the State has been blinded to these realities. “The failure to reconcile romantic nationalism and nationalist myth with the realities of Gaeltacht life has been a conspicuous element in the failure to save the language”, according to Hindley.
The reasons Irish is dying are obvious. The language once thrived in the isolated small communities which spoke it. With the coming of the motorcar, the advent of mass tourism and emigration all this ended. Dingle, for instance, now depends on tourism for its main source of income, and these tourists speak English.
But what happens if Irish dies in the Gaeltacht areas, as now seems inevitable? “A country which cannot adequately support at home the people who speak its dying national language will have grave difficulties in sustaining it into the future,” writes Hindley.
Do the parents believe this? Doubtful. They will be happy to have their children speaking classroom Irish, a dumbed-down, easier-to-learn version of Irish that native Irish speakers find almost incomprehensible. And can Irish be sustained only by enthusiastic intellectuals who associate language with nation?
Understandable as it was that the new Free State had as a top priority to revive Irish, it was probably too late by 1922 to succeed. In that year only a handful of people were native, monoglot speakers. That decline began as far back as the late 17th century when parents increasingly encouraged their children to speak English, especially as the Penal Laws were relaxed.
By the late 18th century Irish was “an interest for scholars and occasional Protestant activists as a medium for conversions”, according to Hindley. Put simply, Irish people had decided over some 200 years to speak English for sensible pragmatic reasons.
Let us face facts: despite all sorts of ingenious plans and incentives, the battle has been lost. And students know it. Irish is not a “sexy” language. Even in Gaeltacht areas teenagers have rejected it as a language of romance. One said: “But if you went to a disco in Galway and asked someone to dance in Irish, you’d be absolutely shunned. It’s just so uncool, man.” For sheer compression, as an obituary for a language, that would be very hard to beat.
It was once believed that the failure to embrace the language was to disavow your very Irishness. This spirit is alive today among many adults, but our youth have learned that the way to gain access to knowledge and power is through the language of the Anglophone world.
Is it not time to make Irish optional?
Robin Bury is chairman of Reform, a non-profit, multidenom-inational organisation that aims to foster a pluralist Ireland. www.Reform.org
Mick Fealty @ 02:00 PM
It is hard to see that by making Irish optional it will suddenly acquire the status of being ‘cool’...merely accelerate its demise.
The only way of making Irish ‘work’ is to create a context for it to be spoken. The debate should only be based on how that is done, not on further marginalising the language by demoting it to an optional subject like Greek or Art or Cookery!
For example, there has been little debate about the need for an Irish language university. This would provide the context for people to learn Irish. It would also provide the next step up from the many secondary Gaelscoileanna. Where do all these students go when they leave these schools? If they wish to continue their studies then they cannot continue speaking Irish as they must attend solely english speaking universities. Therefore, one way of preserving Irish and promoting it, without lessening the requirement of Irish people to learn their own language, is to increase its social standing through an attachment to higher learning. Only through the use of Irish in a real context will it ever be ‘cool’. Of course, there must be many different ways of promoting Irish in the way I mention above if the political or social will was there, but then that is another question.I must add that Mr Bury does a lot of criticism in his piece but little of it constructive. So, make Irish optional then what? He offers nothing. We must all be aware of the subtext of his little attempt to bury Irish alive, as it were. Is it that when we turn our backs on Irish we will all somehow happily join the commonwealth again? He is hardly a nertral observer.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 02:33 PM41 minutes and counting… no sign of maca! :-)
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 02:43 PM‘Dingle,’ Where’s that? :-)
‘but our youth have learned that the way to gain access to knowledge and power is through the language of the Anglophone world.’
Is anglophone another word for American?
I think Irish should be optional, as should English from Junior cert onwards. Equally I’d hate to see Irish die out.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 02:59 PM‘We must all be aware of the subtext of his little attempt to bury Irish alive, as it were. Is it that when we turn our backs on Irish we will all somehow happily join the commonwealth again?’
Bury is not trying to bury Irish. He is merely pointing out it is already dead as a language, a result of general consensus among Irish nearly 300 years ago. Since then it has gradually become more of a hobby, and hence cannot be forced onto kids in school. It’s a beautiful language but it’s finished
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 03:11 PMrtjmca:
“Bury is not trying to bury Irish. He is merely pointing out it is already dead as a language, a result of general consensus among Irish nearly 300 years ago.”
He and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion but my question is, what is the point of Bury saying what he does now (offering no new insights, no ideas, nothing)? And why now. Hindley’s book is not new. I have known of this work for the last 15 years. Where has Bury been these last 15 years? Hindley’s book, by the way, was followed by a detailed rebuttal entitled, ‘Buried Alive’. Irish, of course, has not died in the not inconsiderable space of time since Hindley’s research was published. It is true that it is under pressure in the Gaeltachts but that has been the case since the foundation of the free state. So, we must ask, why the sudden interest of Mr. Bury in the national language (from an avowed supporter of the crown and commonwealth?). He hardly comes across as the typical Gaeilgeoir, worried about the state of the language…
He advocates just washing our hands of the language, making it optional…
Should we also make Maths and Science optional because the children don’t think they are cool?
The reason a lot of Irish people are monolingual has nothing to do with the teaching of Irish. He compares us to Portugal when he should be comparing us to his ‘mother country’ of choice. Which other country in Europe has the same (or worse) monolingualism as found in Ireland? Yes, you’ve guessed it...England, where they have only the one language to trouble the heads of teenagers. So, the idea that learning Irish interferes with the learning of other languages is a nonsense. The high levels of monolingualism must be there for other reasons, but of course, this would not tally with Mr. Bury’s simplistic thesis of Irish bad, English good…This is a typical piece by the way from the new Irish Times since Madam took over - right wing, reactionary and knee-jerk pro-unionist (a la Bury)…
“It’s a beautiful language but it’s finished”
We shall see. Níl an cluiche caillte fos...(the game is not yet lost)
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 03:42 PMI guess that this, then, finally settles the argument:
The Irish aren’t British - they’re English!
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 03:46 PMOh and Ulster Scots. A great example.
It didn’t exist five years ago and now even I can understand it. :-)
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:03 PMIf I understand Reform correctly their aim is to reintegrate Ireland with the UK as that’s the best guarantee of it being pluralist sometime in the future.
Somehow the Reform’ s version of pluralism cannot accomodate the Irish language or, it seems, the Angelus. The Angelus can toll its own bell - I speak here about Irish though I do think that the targets of Reform indicate it’s rather narrow agenda. Irish speakers and/or catholics not welcome in pluralist Britain where Catholics are debarred by law from acceding to the throne. (Never mind that the Angelus is appreciated as much by Archbishop of Dublin (CoI) John Neill as it is by Catholics.)
Bury (his head in the sand) is based on nothing more recent than a book with contentious findings which was originally published 16 years ago. It’s old hat - and that’s typical of the IT, allowing such unrepresentative head the balls not alone denigrate the Irish language with shoddy polemics but also misrepresent the community which they claim to speak on behalf of. How many Irish protestants out there think the Reform Movement represents them? Does anyone think they’re represented by this Taliban-like organisation?
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:13 PMseabhac siulach
And how will keeping compulsory Irish, or even opening an Irish language university, change the fact that almost 99% of the people do not use the language as their daily spoken language. The maybe 10% who do the occasional coupla focail business, or pretend not to read the subtitles on TnaG, really dont count.
Ireland is unique in that it is the only country where around 1% use the official language as their primary daily language, and the other 99% use the second (grudgingly) recognized language. Or that after 12 years of compulsory Irish the majority of students leave school with no functional fluency in the official language.
Add to that the fact that the most precipitous decline in daily usage of the official language in its traditional areas happened during the last 80 years, during the period of the compulsory Irish policies, and you have all the elements of a truly spectacular debacle.
The Irish language policies over the last 80 years have always being more about politics than any genuine concern about the language and its native speakers. They were based on an historical myth and on a very narrow and chauvinistic view of Irish nationality. They were attempt to indoctrinate the population through the educational system into conforming to a profoundly reactionary view of national self-identity. A quick look, or rather listen, around any town or city in todays Ireland will show just how complete their failure has been.
With the honorable exception of Aonghus, none of the contributers here in previous threads on the Irish language have shown much evidence of anything other than the traits of the stereotypical gaelgoir - parading the Irish language as a badge of their identity politics. As long as they can live in their cozy little self-indulgent world of language identity politics they are happy to defend, often in very belligerent terms, policies that have destroyed the language they claim to cherish.
So Aonghus, if you are out there, what do the people who genuinely care about the Irish language suggest to try and halt the seeming terminal decline of Irish as a living daily language?
Or is it just a matter of just defending the status quo, no matter how disastrous, for the lack of any viable alternative?
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:22 PMwow - first comment on Slugger… here goes (deep breath)
I went into Gael Linn (Irish language center) in Dublin last week and I couldn’t get a place on a course starting any time soon. Booked out.
I like to speak Irish and was looking to improve my fluency a bit (my Irish is like Bertie Ahern’s English), and I know a lot of people in the same situation.
I agree with seabhac siulach that a third-level college in Irish would be a great idea! We had to fight for a radio station, a TV station, and now for a university (although the existing universities already do a great job for the language, and will continue to do so, whatever happens).
Plenty of people want to speak Irish, so please ignore the typical Irish self-racist b*llshit, stop apologizing for the language and take a few evenings over a few weeks of your life learning a bit more Gaeilge (you would be amazed how much you already know).
The problem isn’t the ‘usefulness’ of the language (hey, why not abandon French and German too, then?) or the difficulty of learning it (18 letters and only 11 irregular verbs in a language older than English? - I mean come on!) The problem is laziness, and an Irish deep-seated awareness of what we think others think of us (’what will the neighbours say?’ on a national scale)
The schools need to take make Irish-language literature optional and give students the choice of ONLY studying conversational Irish.
I agree that the way it is taught needs to change, but relegating it to the status of home economics is not the answer.
And for the record, I think that no-one should be denied a place in university because they don’t have Irish, but conversational Irish could become an attractive way of earning a good few more points for the leaving cert!
Slán,
CormacPosted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:23 PM‘Or is it just a matter of just defending the status quo, no matter how disastrous, for the lack of any viable alternative?’
Why is the current policy disastrous? Why will the current Irish policy lead to disaster.
Irish isn’t compulsory in NI, England, Wales or any other country for that matter. Why are they so much more better off? Disaster? If Ireland in the 21st century is a disaster then bring on the apocalypse.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:38 PMDespite my web name I would not for one moment suggest Latin should be a compulsory subject nor would I suggest that one should do other subjects in the medium of Latin.
When I was in my teens I was a fairly indolent but fundamentally a practical sort. I found it hard to get my mind round the idea of learning languages that were of little conceivable practical value. The idea that it was good for the character or learning is reward enough just didn’t wash when there were many other more interesting subjects not covered and friends to make and impress.
Spending money on teaching people that are totally uninterested is counter productive better to spend on those with interest. I know there are those who are passionate about Irish and it is tied up with their perceptions of identity but that is perhaps your own personal interest, why impose it on others who don’t share the passion?
With regards languages generally I would agree that teaching needs to improve in Britain and Ireland.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:45 PMWales have appeared to make a decent job of reviving Welsh - I frequently hear it spoken amongst themselves by Welsh visitors to Dublin. What have they done differently to us?
I cannot remember the last time I heard someone speak in Irish who was wasn’t being paid to do so (teachers, broadcasters and so on). Oh wait, there was one: Brian Dooher.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:52 PM“Why is the current policy disastrous? Why will the current Irish policy lead to disaster.”
Perhaps because it has not hindered the impending death of the living language...at all?
The fact that Cormac there is trying to get on (booked out) classes as an adult says something. It says “These adults failed to learn the Irish language through all their years in school”, so yeah… that’s a fairly disasterous education policy.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:53 PMJ McConnell:
“And how will keeping compulsory Irish, or even opening an Irish language university, change the fact that almost 99% of the people do not use the language as their daily spoken language.”
I mentioned a university as a one means of giving Irish a context in the wider society, beyond secondary school level for thousands of Irish schoolkids. Irish cannot be spoken in a vacumn, that is the problem. It is necessary to create a space where adults may speak the language in society. This, at present, does not exist in an urban setting anywhere in the country.
Obviously an Irish language university will also create jobs, attract industry, etc. to where it is located and so preserve jobs in or near gaeltacht areas (assuming it were located in, for example, Dingle or some other (nominally) Gaeltacht town) and so help to stabilise the population loss in those regions. Emigration from the Gaeltachts is more important than whether some in those areas think Irish is cool or not, by the way.So your solution (and Bury’s) would be to let the language decay further. Beyond any nationalistic feeling does that not seem a tad uncaring and cold? This is a language older than english. You offer no solution, by the way, beyond stereotypical complaints against Irish. Heard it all before.
Do you have a particular hatred against the language for some obscure reason, perhaps related to your own learning of it, or more likely utter failure to learn it? I guess failure can build resentment...no one likes to fail after all.I deeply resent, by the way, your implication that my views are anything other than an honest attempt to challenge Mr. Bury’s thesis. I see little in what I have said for you to make the outrageous claim that I am ‘parading the Irish language as a badge of their identity politics’. I am not doing that but neither am I willing to leave unchallenged the opinions of someone who I feel does not exactly have the best future health of the Irish language as one of his priorities. I would admit that one of the failures of the Irish language in the last 30-40 years or more has been its association with only one side of the community in Ireland. The association with the republicanism has been the most damaging.
“They were attempt to indoctrinate the population through the educational system into conforming to a profoundly reactionary view of national self-identity. “
I am sorry but Irish language education never attempted what you claim. I would suggest that the old history lessons (through the medium of english!) and the biased view they portrayed were more damaging than attempts to get teenagers to understand basic Irish grammar.
The solution there was to change the curriculum.
Not to make history optional…As you and Mr. Bury appear to only take issue (on the surface) with the teaching of Irish, then perhaps we should be debating HOW Irish is taught not whether it IS taught. Perhaps the curriculum needs to be changed, perhaps more emphasis should be put on speaking the language than on grammar, perhaps there should be more trips organised to Gaeltacht regions, etc. There are solutions beyond making Irish optional. But then knee-jerk members of the anti-Irish brigade will not countenance these. We must throw out the baby with the bath water, it seems. We will then be as monolingual as the English.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:55 PM‘“These adults failed to learn the Irish language through all their years in school”, so yeah… that’s a fairly disasterous education policy.’
That’s a real ‘the full glass is empty attitude’.
It could because of immigrants (quite popular amongst them I believe), refresher courses or because they were too busy chasing the opposite sex in their younger years. Not every body did well in school (be it Irish, Maths or physics etc), but your comments are enlightening all the same.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:58 PMThe Irish language policies over the last 80 years have always being more about politics than any genuine concern about the language and its native speakers. They were based on an historical myth and on a very narrow and chauvinistic view of Irish nationality. They were attempt to indoctrinate the population through the educational system into conforming to a profoundly reactionary view of national self-identity. A quick look, or rather listen, around any town or city in todays Ireland will show just how complete their failure has been.
So sayeth the prophet J McConnell - and he never said a truer word in relation to those of his ilk who cloak their loathing for the Irish language in supposed concern for its survival. For such people, their politics are defined by their anti Irish language stance and their anti Irish ness but more than that they’re anti-enlightenment. They don’t want to learn, they’re the crackheads at the back of the class who didn’t pay attention and want now to impose their ignorance on the rest of us.
Every single argument that I’ve seen Mr McConnell participate in about Irish has him seeking to deny it the rights so readily acceded to the English language in Ireland.
The argument about Irish being optional in schools making it more cool is passé that it’s unbelievable that it’s still being trotted out. The southern school system is focused on the Leaving Certificate - those who do well in this earn points which get them a place in College if they’re lucky enough to be on the right side of the dividing line when the uni authorities decide to accept those above the line and reject those below.
In such a system, if the Irish language is made optional, the reaction will be for those who are currently finding the language difficult for whatever reason (and I will return to this), will drop it and concentrate on a subject which will earn them points without as much effort.
This in effect licences an education system which means that future doctors and lawyers and the like will be the products not of a well rounded education but rather of a cramming exercise.
The solution should be to reformulate the education system in order to ensure it actually is an education system - rather than a murder machine - and participants actually gain a well rounded education from it and are better able to choose their chosen careers on the basis of their abilities and aptitude rather than their performance in an exam on a given day.
For Irish people, this means learning Irish.
If it’s any consolation, I’m in favour of optional Irish - just as long as the Leaving Cert istself is optional and that, eventually, an entirely different, more enlightened system takes its place.
To think this is the year 2006 and we’re still using methods of education which were used in the 19th century is truly depressing - and that’s what the likes of J McConnell wants us to preserve.Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 04:58 PMIrish is not only a language, it is also a trove where thousands of years of island culture are locked up in its words.
The way it has been and is taught is a major problem but to cut off your cultural hand to spite your cultural face seems a bit extreme to me.
The alternative isn’t to remove the special status afforded to Irish but to create methods that work.
I agree with Cormac about the university requirement but that is a voluntary decision of the NUI and is not forced through legislation (and our northern brethren are exempt).
The Irish people can always demand a referendum to remove its constitutional status if they feel it needs to be shown that it no longer needs to be cherished.None of those who speak out against the status Irish enjoys ever bring up the idea of putting this to a democratic vote of the people. Why? Because they know they would lose hands down.
As I result, I see no reason to change its status, change how this cultural treasure is imparted to our people, certainly, limit the level of impartment, certainly not.
If we manage to become a bilingual state in 100 years or whenever, great. If we don’t, great.
But to quit on the idea?Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 05:02 PMGeorge
“None of those who speak out against the status Irish enjoys ever bring up the idea of putting this to a democratic vote of the people. Why? Because they know they would lose hands down.”
Your probably right as the droves may vote unthinkingly, its Irish therefore we must, but I wouldn’t be too sure based on the odium that many friends and relations greet their recollections of Irish at school. Admittedly they tend to live along the East coast.
“If we manage to become a bilingual state in 100 years or whenever, great. If we don’t, great. But to quit on the idea? “
But at what cost? If you are learning Irish then what has to make way? Science, Music, History. There are only so many hours in the day. Teach those who want to learn and do it well and leave the rest to get on with whatever they prefer.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 05:23 PMCrataegus,
learning Irish doesn’t mean you are missing out somewhere else, it means you are prioritising Irish.As it is most schools do seven subjects (some do 8) for Leaving Certificate with grading in five or six, depending on university.
English, Irish and maths are required subjects up to Leaving Certificate in every Irish schools as far as I know.
You remove Irish as a required subject and it gets put in with the other groups from which you pick your remaining subjects.
For example, in my school I had the choice between economics or geography in one group or history and business organisation in another.
French or chemistry was another.Music? We didn’t have music.
On voting, I think you do people and democracy a great disservice to say they vote unthinkingly.
People have thought about Irish and the overwhelming majority still feel it’s worthwile.Odium at the teaching of Irish is not the same as odium for the Irish language or for the idea of teaching it to all citizens.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 05:43 PMseabhac siulach, I have to take issue with your suggestion that anyone who questions the compulsion to learn Irish only does so because they the must have failed to master the language themselves.
Speaking from personal experience, I attended a primary Gaelscoil and have always enjoyed speaking the language from that point. I certainly would not question the value of learning the language at a young age. However, attending an English secondary school gave me a rather different perspective. It was apparent that the majority of others in my class were not interested in learning the language. As a result, my enjoyment of the language decreased, while the attitude of those others turned from disinterest to outright disdain. Surely my time and theirs could have been better spent?
I certainly don’t advocate monolingualism, but there may certainly be those who would rather spend their time learning Spanish than Irish? Is it fair to punish those students, while simultaneously forever tarnishing their opinion of the language?
As for opening an Irish language university, surely you must be aware of the recent press coverage regarding the falling number of leaving cert students and the increased competition between third level institutions. In addition, funding at third level has been increasingly a problem over the last decade. So would such a university be economically viable? And how would it encourage those casual speakers or skeptics to learn the language? From my own acquaintances, it seems that it is generally only native Irish speakers who avail of third level courses that a run through Irish, such as those in DCU.
Oilbhéar Chromaill, you suggest that dropping compulsory Irish will somehow result in future doctors and lawyers lacking a well-rounded education. But that is already the case with the Leaving Certificate. In fact, you will find that Irish is one of the most popular subjects in ‘grind schools’, as most of the current course can be learned by rote and Irish is seen as an ‘easy A’ by those looking for high points. I certainly agree with you that the education system here should be completely overhauled to remove the dependence on a single set of exams and encourage the learning of a broader range of “minority” subjects - including Irish, but also history, music, art etc. However, as Crataegus pointed out, there are only so many hours in the school day. Is it fair to prioritise one of those subjects over another, for *all* students?
My opinions are not based, as some might suggest, on any “self-racist”, anti-Irish or pro-unionist sentiment. I reiterate again that I feel a great affinity for the Irish language, and will certainly encourage my children to learn it from a young age. However, there is a significant difference between encouragement and compulsion. The latter only serves to instill the bitterness and resentment of the kind that you accuse others.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 05:46 PMOC, please cool the personal references to others in the discussion; if only because it’s taking the edge off your own argument.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 05:54 PMYou want your children to learn the Irish, and keep the Irish as a living language?
The baby must be raised by a Gaelic speaking primary caregiver. No any other language!
Expriments done with children recently where a Finnish-Estonia couple had Mom speak one language, and Dad the other, resulted in confused children. The languages are relatively similiar (being from the Finno-Ugric branch of the Altaic language group).
In school, non-language subjects need to be taught in Irish.
And your policies are somewhat laughable. You titles use Taniste, Garda, TD, etc, but its sounds more like Tammany Hall where “Boss” Tweed was the “Grand Sachem”, and other Algonquian names were used. None spoke any real Amerindian language. Any “Indian” culture they adapted was more akin to the “Plactic Paddy” or “Stage Scotsman” variety.
The folks in the Gaeltacht should sue for misappropriation.
Israel has been far more successful re Hebrew.
The flip side of all this is that as Gaelic would become more and more the norm in RoI, NI unionists would become less and less enamored with a UI (if it’s even possible for them to be even less enamored).
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 07:05 PMMy point is very simple.
The ram Irish down every-ones throat brigade have now held sway for 80 years, that’s *three* generations. In that time the status of the Irish language as a *living* language used by *ordinary* people going about their daily business has gone from sickly but still showing signs of life to basically flat-lining. You even have to go to the right part of the Gaeltacht to hear anyone speak Irish in an ordinary setting.
That by anyones definition is a failure.
Show me one minority language that has been revived, or even stabilized, through language policies like those in place in Ireland over the last 80 years?
The answer is none.
So what we are left with is a hobby language for enthusiasts and cranks, just like Esperanto.
Will another 80 years of compulsory Irish change this situation? Will another few generations of school-children being taught a dumbed down version of the real language somehow, miraculously, nobody knows how, convert Ireland into an Irish speaking country? A country were walking down the streets of Dublin or Cork or Mullingar all one hears is the babble of conversations Irish?
Maybe in some alternate universe, but not in this one.
So what is the point of compulsory Irish again? To conserve the language? The preserve the language? To revive the language? Or as some kind of cultural fetish for a vocal political minority.
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 07:07 PMIrish is one of the most beautiful languages on Earth - especially in song - but much as I’d love to be able to hold up a good rambling conversation as gaeilge, I sadly wouldn’t be able understand more than the cupla focail.
Being from Galway, I had Irish shoved down my throat in school - for 13 straight years - and coming out of those 13 years I could barely string more than a few words together. Almost from the age of five, I just hated the way I was *forced* to learn it - I think Irish would be much more effectively taught to those who make the positive choice to learn it.
I think it should be compulsory for every school in the South to teach Irish, but optional for pupils to take it.
As a Unionist, it would grieve me deeply to see the Irish language disappear. But those who would like to save the language must rethink their approach - since the foundation of the Irish state, tens of millions of Irish kids have had the language forced upon them in school - the net result has been appalling, no more than a few paltry thousands in the Gaeltacht to keep the language alive. Surely this, in itself, says a change in approach is needed?
The Irish language is the common inheritance of every man, woman and child on this island - why is it so often advanced as a seamless part of the blood-and-soil nationalist narrative? Many fellow Unionists I know are curious about the language, but almost to a person they are put off by the nationalist/separatist connotations. The language should be something we can all share in. It’s got to become a living language - not something forced upon us, but rather something lived and spoken each and every day across the island.
Has anyone ever taken the time to translate The Sash, or God Save the Queen, as gaeilge? :-)
Answers on a postcard please…
Posted by on Feb 02, 2006 @ 07:19 PM
