BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Compulsory languages at school?

  
 
Loomis
15:29 / 05.11.02
Having just been for a backpacking jaunt around Europe and encountering so many Europeans who also speak English, I've been thinking about the common notion we have in non-continental countries about how bad we are if we only speak English. People often remark that they feel stupid or ignorant because of this lack, and feel inferior to someone who speaks more than one language. And I'm wondering why, and if something should be done about it.

So, 2 questions. Do you think a second language should be made compulsory in English speaking countries, as it is in many European ones, and why? For practical purposes or for educational ones?

Personally, I think it should be compulsory, mainly for educational reasons, in terms of learning how to think in different ways, just as I support compulsory mathematics even if you're never going to use trigonometry after you leave school. I think it's very good for our growing brains to think in different directions. The practical side is definitely there for some people who will do some long or short-term travelling, but the majority of students probably won't ever use much of it, but still I think it's a good idea.

I would however say that, as far as feeling inferior because I only speak English, I find this rather an odd thing. Should I feel inferior because someone has had compulsory English for many years at school when I didn't have the option to learn a second language? I don't feel superior to anybody because I learned more maths at my school than they did at theirs. And furthermore, what is the use of my learning fluent German if the odds of my ever having anything more than a short holiday there are very very slim? Especially in terms of European languages, what would be the point in fluent German when I'm off on my backpacking trip through 7 countries? So I can speak comfortably with German waiters for the 1 week I'm in that particular country?

I'm a good boy and learn all my phrases before setting off somewhere, and have even learned a gropingly adequate amount of Italian in the past just for the fun of it, but I've been struck by the amount of people who feel terribly embarrassed because they never learned a language at school. I sometimes find myself feeling that way, though more because I love language and would enjoy using another one, rather than that I feel stupid for not having done so. Though some would argue (and I would force myself to agree) that I *am* stupid for not having done so, as my father speaks something like 6 languages and I could have learned them as a lad, but you never want to at that age do you? Hence the Loomis plan (TM) for compulsory schooling.

So what do you think?
 
 
Loomis
15:32 / 05.11.02
And one more question. Which language(s) would you suggest for which countries/ regions etc.?

Something that is used fairly widely like Spanish or French? Or the language(s) of the indigenous people(s) of your country? Latin? Klingon?
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:29 / 05.11.02
Hmmm, well, if education is supposed to provide a grab-bag of basic skills on which to build, I'd definitely include a second language, something widespread like Spanish or French for maximum value. And even if you never use that language, learning other languages will be less daunting and probably easier.

As for feeling inferior on holidays, I think that's more because we're relying on their ability to speak our language. Not so much inferior as inadequate. Granted they only have to learn the one language, but there's no reason we can't pick up enough to get through the day.
 
 
diz
17:55 / 05.11.02
i think, in my case at least, the weird self-consiousness has a lot to do with wanting to avoid being the stereotypical "ugly American" tourist at all costs. i'd really like to avoid being the rude visitor who has to demand that other people have to speak my language when i'm in their home, so to speak.

as far as compulsory language education goes, i'd say yes, absolutely, starting as young as possible. i think the specifics of the language (or languages) chosen are not terribly relevant - there are advantages and disadvantages to most languages. although practical concerns certainly suggest that some might be more handy for more people more of the time, i don't think it's necessary to dictate language choice, but we should insist that as many children as possible should be multilingual in some language. i think it's just healthy for society to be open in that way.
 
 
SMS
18:26 / 05.11.02
Mandarin Chinese would be nice.
 
 
bjacques
18:38 / 05.11.02
Doesn't the UK do this already? In most of the U.S., you can't graduate from high school without taking 2 years of a foreign language. Nationally-accredited colleges have this requirement too, I think.

I did mine 20 years ago. Two years of Spanish have pretty much gone to waste, except that, combined with the French that barely enables me to read lurid accounts of the 1793 Terror, I can now puzzle out a little Latin. A year of German, also from that time, has been wiped out by Dutch. I learned Russian from Clockwork Orange (more useful than you'd expect).
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
19:18 / 05.11.02
I seem to remember that they're binning the modern language requirement at GCSE level (or Key Stage Four or whatever the hell they're calling it these days - the basic secondary education certificate, anyway). When I were a lass you had to take at least one. (I do think, though, that there'll still be two years of language teaching in the run-up to the two GCSE years.) I think it's pretty shocking really - apart from anything else, learning a language - any language - is surely good mental training. And, even if you only learn one language, surely the process of learning it would make it easier to learn others later on?

Furthermore, I think going somewhere else and not (at the very least) at least trying to speak the language is bad form...

I wish I'd kept mine up - then maybe I wouldn't be faced with the terrifying prospect of having to read state diplomatic papers in at least three languages I can't speak properly.
 
 
grant
19:37 / 05.11.02
Especially in terms of European languages, what would be the point in fluent German when I'm off on my backpacking trip through 7 countries? So I can speak comfortably with German waiters for the 1 week I'm in that particular country?



Well, if it's true fluency, you might find yourself reading Nietzsche and Thomas Mann in their original language.

Also, in the case of German, you'll find yourself able to understand and be understood in Dutch and Flemish, as well as possibly a little Danish & (less so) other Scandinavian languages. That's an awful lot of Europe covered there. You'd also be more likely to run into a Russian or Turk or Namibian or Indonesian who spoke *one* of the languages you can understand.

My favorite story about language education (and this from me, who only has restaurant Spanish and a handful of German words): Miami Herald reporter Michael Browning was stationed in the China bureau for a while. He once was able to conduct an interview with a Chinese Catholic priest without the state-supplied (and anti-religion) translator because he'd been to Catholic school... where he learned Latin. So much for a "dead" language.
 
 
Fist Fun
21:02 / 05.11.02
In Scotland one language is compulsary up to 4th year at secondary school. It was never very popular in mine though. My standard grade German class had five pupils and my Higher French the same number.
I certainly think languages should be encouraged but they shouldn't be too compulsary.

Loomis, you seem to overstate the role of childhood education. I think languages can be great part of a lifelong education and they can be much more relevant as you grow older. If you stuck in some dull childhood suburbia then learning a language might seem pointless but if you end up taking a year abroad or working overseas the desire and ability to learn languages and immerse in other cultures becomes vital.

I've spent time and effort learning languages and I really appreciate the rewards. They get me jobs, they let me live in other countries, they switch me on to whole new branches of film, literature, thought...and even though it is hard and requires effort I want to learn more and keep learning until I die.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
22:45 / 05.11.02
See, for me it's very much like grant suggests: I'd like to use fluency in a language as something to facilitate reading in the original language, mainly because I always feel that there has to be some kind of nuance that I'm missing out on in the layers of translation and selection and all that kinda stuff. It's a bit wanky, but then, so am I.

Unlike you, though, Loomis, I do feel inferior for not knowing other languages, and wish I knew more. But then, maybe that's a function of personal insecurity. I feel genuinely dumber when I can't deal with things on a basic level, and the lack of linguistic ability, save English and a little French, is the key to this. I think it's because I'd like to be able to be my anonymous self in a country and be able to not have to rely on fuckign *I am a tourist* style "uh, I don't understand" gestures. I do think it's rude to go somewhere and not have a grasp of the language, whether it's in terms of phrases or the whole hog, and I often wonder why people think they get a rude reception. I was always taught that you should *make the effort* - most people will appreciate that you're trying to communicate, and come more than halfway to figure out what it is that you want. Largely, though, I think it's that I love to talk. I communicate. I talk out of my arse, I talk too much, I possibly/probably annoy. But I like to get something across: something I can't do when I'm hamstrung by my own shortcomings. Yeah, people could just learn English, but... you know? Gah.

I do get yr points on the brief nature of travel and related quick-passing instances of language use. But the more I prowl around the net - in particular, by reading neubauten.org, the more I wonder how much more I'd have access to if I spoke German? Certain posters don't speak English, the band are all German - while part of me wants to be fluent so I can sing my way through Haus Der Luege without sounding like a twat, the rest of me can't help but think that there's something I'm missing.

Maybe that's it? The sneaking suspicion that language is some kind of hermetic thing - that there's something of greater import behind the words that you're not able to pick up because you're not fluent? That's kinda how it is for me...
 
 
Cliff and Ferry Street
00:45 / 06.11.02
I agree with everyone who has implied that a grasp on some foreign languages is good for much more than being able to effectively order a beer when traveling and thirsty. Reading books in the original. Watching films that are part one language and part another, and getting all the nuances. Appreciating the mindset of the particular culture that raised this or that personal hero of the moment. Having access to alternative viewpoints on current affairs. I could go on.

As for the original questions, I do think English-speakers would benefit from some compulsory language classes in school. I think two or three different languages would be better than just the one second language, though, for both educational and practical reasons. Dealing with several different languages at the same time makes it easier to understand the basic structure of a language and the variables in the grammatic build. Personally, I think this is the key to being able to pick up new languages easily throughout one's life.

It's also true that understanding a bigger language from a well-spread linguistic family means almost-understanding many smaller languages, and makes them infinitely easier to learn. Especially if you have some kind of a feel for the basic building blocks of any language thanks to your brushes with different ones. So, fluency in German doesn't just help you order beer in Germany, but helps you order beer in places you wouldn't know to dream of.

And that is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
 
 
MJ-12
01:02 / 06.11.02
from Sophal Ear

I am originally from Cambodia... In an amazing and harrowing tale of survival, my mother was able to get herself, my siblings, and yours truly, into Vietnam in 1976, where we stayed until 1978. By her own account, she decided to take a chance when told that the Vietnamese Prime Minister was recalling all Vietnamese citizens out of Democratic Kampuchea ... As she had the fortune of speaking some Vietnamese (having dealt with some Vietnamese vendors and shopkeepers at the local markets) she decided to try her luck at pretending to be Vietnamese.

Boys and girls, this is a really important lesson for those of you who hate learning foreign languages...
 
 
Loomis
07:47 / 06.11.02
Okay, a couple of points.

Firstly, I am well aware of the myriad uses of knowing more than one language, even partially. I know that English comes from German and that all the Romance languages have the same root. I know how cool it would be to read my favourite books in their original language. It's just that having recently been to Europe and chatted about this subject with other travellers, I was reminded of this meme which assumes that Europeans or anyone who speaks two languages is some sort of demi-god, and anyone who doesn't is a dumb tourist.

So on one hand, knowing the value of learning languages, I would love to see everyone, including myself, have access to this knowledge as early as possible. On the other hand however, I find the meme of non-Europeans being less sophisticated a little tired.

Secondly, I'm interested primarily in the notion of language fluency. I've learned lots of phrases before and during my travels. I love learning any and all languages, and love seeing how little bits go together in different and sometimes unexpected countries, and I love noting references in books which I wouldn't have known if I hadn't learned these little bits of other languages. Yet anyone can learn this amount relatively quickly. In terms of real fluency however, a number of years of regular study are required, such as is difficult to maintain as an adult, and also there's the whole thing about us being able to learn much more quickly as children.

Also, the earlier you learn something, the greater the part of your life which can benefit from it.
 
 
Ariadne
08:04 / 06.11.02
I think the ideal situation would be to start language lessons early, at primary school, so that it doesn't become a frightening, daunting thing to do. Even just learning one language will make people less afraid of starting to learn another.

I wonder if it's just English-speakers who feel bad about this, though? There will always be languages you can't speak, unless you're some sort of linguistic genius. One of my colleagues is Dutch, and speaks French, German, English and, obviously, Dutch. I wonder how he feels in Spain? Does he feel rude and uncultured there? Or does he escape the guilt-factor because English isn't his mother tongue?

I think that English speakers have a general sense of guilt about not speaking other languages, and we don't like to live up to the stereotype of the clumsy tourist. I speak French and German well enough to get by but I still feel like a rude British person in, say, Italy.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:23 / 06.11.02
Loomis, you might be tired of the idea of non-Europeans as somehow less sophisticated tiresome. I am too. But I'm afraid that where we come from, that's a bias that's still kicking. It was hammered into me early enough, and probably cemented when, in my recent period of UK dwelling (though this really has fuck all to do with the topic and is tangential at best) I was constantly reminded of my convict ancestry, or otherness, or antipodean out-there-somewhere-where-they-don't-read boy-nature. It's something that's existent, though maybe this is only best examined or explained at by looking at the roots of a nations (dis)satisfaction with language. Is English seen as plain, while there's a mystery - whether it's due to sound or history or whatever - that other languages have that's appealing? It's a bit far off your original point, granted, but I think it's worth considering.

Who knows? As Ariadne points out, maybe here polylingual friend feels the same thing about hir native tongue; that it's boring or somehow less... sophisticated? interesting? than other options.

I wasn't suggesting you were unaware of these differing uses of learnt language: merely saying that that's why I am interested in them. For me, fluency is key, too - as that facilitates the interaction that I'm talking about that's so important.

I still think that the essential mystery of something you don't understant - replete with the bafflement that that entails - is a key player in why *some* monolingual people feel frustrated. A sense of waiting power, untapped. Hmm. Actually - there's a thought. Does knowledge of languages place one in a more powerful position? I would think it probably does, though I don't know to what end.

I certainly agree, though, that it's the years of learning that're the problem with mastery. Especially once one's past adulthood.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
09:29 / 06.11.02
In Canadian schools we all learn French. I also learned some Latin, German, and now I'm learning Finnish. Two things about second-language-learning: one, unless you are the sort of person who is going to stay in one place your whole life (and there are many such people, and there's nothing wrong with staying put), learning another language will open so many doors. Two, it is nearly impossible to learn to speak another language without continuing opportunities to practice. I studied french for 9 years in school, but after 2 months in Berlin my german is better than my french - spoken and listening, at least. You can learn to read another language without ever opening your mouth.

The worst thing for me is to walk into a shop here and start right off in english. I think it's terribly rude, and I should at least make the effort to use finnish, and use english only if i cannot get my message across at all. Travelling in places where I don't speak the language makes me feel lonely, helpless, and at the mercy of people who are kind enough to speak my language or translate things for me. So I really do like to have some linguistic know-how.

As for many languages good, one language duhhhh... I think it's important to remember that it's a lot easier for non-english speakers to learn english than it is to pick up other languages because english-language media are everywhere. Movies, advertising, books, magazines, and especially television here in Finland come in many languages but English is definitely the second-dominant after Finnish. This is not to say that they all pick it up automatically, but anyone who is making the effort will find plenty of opportunity to reinforce their learning. In Canada my only extra-curricular french lessons came from cereal boxes.

Having said that, yes, I do think you're stupid if you speak only English and you have pretensions of being an Internationally Active Person. I want to learn Mandarin next - I think it'll be my saving grace in 30 years.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
09:33 / 06.11.02
granted:
Also, in the case of German, you'll find yourself able to understand and be understood in Dutch and Flemish, as well as possibly a little Danish & (less so) other Scandinavian languages. That's an awful lot of Europe covered there. You'd also be more likely to run into a Russian or Turk or Namibian or Indonesian who spoke *one* of the languages you can understand.

Bang on. At a theatre I'm volunteering in here, I speak English or German to the director, who replies to me in German or Finnish - we understand these languages but have different levels of expressive ability. It makes things so much easier. My german makes reading cooking directions and other necessaries possible, because everything here is in finnish and swedish, and unless I take the time to get out the finnish dictionary, I rely on the swedish instructions.
 
 
Ariadne
10:23 / 06.11.02
On a related if slightly tangential note, what about children being taught minority languages as their first language? Like children in the north of Scotland being taught Gaelic as their mother tongue, or New Zealand kids (in some 'language nest' schools) being taught exclusively in Maori?

I appreciate the value of keeping the language and culture alive, but I wonder if they will be grateful when they're older? I suppose it depends how fluent they end up being in English. If they can speak other, more widely-used languages then the more unusual one will be a good cultural skill.

But if they struggle in anything other then Maori (say) then they'll be limited in what they can do. Unless of course everyone in NZ starts to learn Maori ... but I'm talking myself into a circle here.
 
 
Loomis
12:03 / 06.11.02
Quoth the 'koid:

I'm afraid that where we come from, that's a bias that's still kicking.

Absolutely, and that's what bothers me. I've spoken to more than one Australian who has mentioned a future career in the UN solely on the fact that they did a bit of French at school, while in Europe someone who speaks two languages makes a good waiter. We're definitely raised to revere that otherness that we can't grasp, and while in principle that is not such a bad thing, I think the extent to which it has grown is disproportionate with its relevance.

I mean, this otherness is more relevant to you and I and probably the majority of 'lithers because we're keen on language and literature, but if that's not your bag, then the learning of a language is primarily, if not solely a skill only to be used on rare occasions. Not that many people want to read books in the original or track down the meaning of obscure phrases. Similarly, maths and science hold a large degree of otherness for me and I would love to learn more and am always planning to, but as my primary interest is language, the fact that I may never grasp adequately this scientific otherness does not come to the fore. Likewise, someone who is not as interested in linguistics as you or I need not feel stupid for not knowing any other languages. If you or I feel stupid for not knowing them, it is our own desire to know more about this field that should berate us, not the prevalent notion that everyone should be multilingual.

Ariadne - I don't know how keen I am on minority languages being a first language in any school, but I think it's a great idea for minority languages to be the language chosen if one is to learn a second. Learning a language indigenous to the region would give a student all the language-learning skill mentioned above, while perhaps, in a case like Australia, taking a step towards reconciliation. A move towards understanding our own region and moving to the future rather than fondling an out-dated notion of European culture and language as the only ones worth knowing.

I guess part of my dissatisfaction with this meme I keep mentioning is that it hearkens back to the days when only gentlemen could go to university where they learned a number of languages, which, besides being intellectually edifying, were useful when they swanned about Europe. And it seems that we are often nostalgic about such a time, and deem a person without this ability to be vulgar, or whatever.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
12:34 / 06.11.02
It's sounding vaguely like you're just bitter that you're not European, Loomis.

Of course, I could liken it to the political situation in Canada, where it is all but impossible to get elected if you're an anglophone. Most people in politics come from Quebec, because only they can communicate well in both languages. Paradoxically, we learn Parisian french in school, which is like teaching someone Danish so they can live in Germany. Imagine if most of the states in America each had its own language - people would just learn it, so it's not really the fault of those living in Europe that they have a second or third language. Having said that, I met LOTS of germans this summer who spoke little to no English, and I'm more astounded to find that even fewer of them speak any french at all! Then again, why should they need it if they're not going to deal with the French except on one or two holidays in their lifetimes?

What is horrid is that those people who are supposed to be able to work internationally don't speak any other languages. Dubya, for instance, is a bit of an embarassment that way - and Bill Clinton memorizing one sentence of german for the reopening of the Brandenburg Gate is similarly twee. But why bother do it at all? Because communicating in the native language is a huge gesture of respect and interest. It says that this traveller is not only going to take, but is willing to give the time and effort to understand the culture of where s/he goes... something which in my opinion counts at least as much as the money spent in tourism, and is definitely more personal. Okay. No more dead horse.
 
 
Ariadne
12:41 / 06.11.02
I'm not sure you can compare language learning to learning science/maths subjects. Maybe Latin/Greek - in that you'd learn them as an intellectual endeavour. Whereas learning languages could be seen as just learning to communicate. In Germany, for example, the people who speak English aren't just the intellectual, language-oriented people. It's just people who want to communicate.

But, having said that, they do it because they want to understand things, because it's such a widely-used language, and not because of any sense that they "ought" to speak English. So those of us who already speak the main language don't have that drive.

Re the gentleman who travelled round Europe speaking languages, or his sister learning French at home -- do you think a knowledge of European languages is still seen as superior to speaking, say, Swahili? Japanese?
 
 
Loomis
13:01 / 06.11.02
Hey! Who says I'm not European?! Would you believe that I have dual Australian/Italian citizenship? You can tell from my classy manner with the laydeez.

I've kind of put myself in an odd position. I have a foot firmly in both camps and a rickety fence giving me splinters where I don't want 'em. Yes I definitely envy those who know more languages than I do, and particularly those who learned them young, which is why I started the thread. I just wanted to muddy the waters a little (job done!) by questioning the attitude that it makes you more worldly or sophisticated to have done so.

And when it comes to the advantages of languages, we seem to have delineated two main ones; firstly, practical for travelling, and secondly, as an intellectual interest, either for general sharpness of mind or for the insight it gives you into other cultures, books, etc. The point I was toying with was that many folks are interested in none, one or both of these, and that it comes down to the individual. Thus a traveller who has learned enough phrases to get by need not feel a dope when confronted by a multilingual waiter.

And I don't think it's fair to expect Dubya to learn a second language. He's got enough on his plate with his English lessons.
 
 
Loomis
13:14 / 06.11.02
Re the gentleman who travelled round Europe speaking languages, or his sister learning French at home -- do you think a knowledge of European languages is still seen as superior to speaking, say, Swahili? Japanese?

Nope. I was just using Europe as a convenient example because of the long tradition of language interchange there. And 'cause these thoughts came from the fact that I was just there doing a little bit of middle class swanning about myself.

Aha! That reminds me of something I was going to add. Although backpacking is within the reach of many people today, the whole notion of overseas travelling remains a fairly middle class one. It's something we tend to do after university before we settle down to our house in the suburbs. And it made me think (just trying to see both sides, you understand) that for many many people there are more important things to learn at school than a bit of French for when they go slumming in Europe. Hmm. That didn't come out right, but you know what I mean, don't you? Anyone? Bueller?
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:28 / 06.11.02
Far be it from me to tell you to stop whinging and get off your arse, Loomis, but...

You'd almost think from reading your posts that you were a stranger to learning and someone who is a touch intimidated by reading. Especially non-fiction.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who genuinely feel like that, as they have often never had much formal education. Some people really don't know where to start.

But as I drag my attention back to you, dear Loomis, I am getting an altogether different picture. You know how to learn and have the intelligence to do so at a fairly nifty pace. You could easily buy or boorow yourself primers, dictionaries, phrasebooks and slowly develop skills in the language of your choice. You could join a class, start reading in a new langauge and have ready a firm base from which to pick up some fluency if you ever went, say, on a tour of Europe.

And while Ariadne is right that science learning is less rooted in the practical, the same basic techniques hold for that. Most of us here are privileged, literate and intelligent and many of us had the benefit of an expensive education. Not just things to put on a CV, you know?
 
 
Loomis
13:54 / 06.11.02
Noooooooo, that's not what I meant!

In the past I have indeed bought primers, dictionaries and phrasebooks and taught myself some Italian, and on my recent trip I spent almost 3 weeks in Italy where I got to use it and it was fabulous. I agree with all that you're saying there.

I'm just toying with some thoughts that were raised in my backpackery brane recently concerning assumptions about the (compulsory) learning of second languages. Devil's advocate and all that, y'know?

I could have started a thread saying "everyone in Europe speaks 2 languages and we should too" and everyone could reply yes yes yes yes yes and the thread would be over. Just trying to sketch in a bit of depth. Unhappily depth is not my strong suit ...
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:02 / 06.11.02
ooops. thats what happens if you write in a rush on no sleep while thinking about advanced maths with a fire alarm banging away. I suppose.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
15:03 / 06.11.02
Depth? Bwahahaha.

Lurid: I think perhaps the reason that it's a little different for Loomis and I (despite his pretentions to Eurotrash) is that in our immediate environment when we were school-age, learning languages is different to, say, someone in the UK. In the UK, you can actually go to France relatively easily. Ditto pretty much anywhere in Europe. There's a proximity that means that you'll run into fluent native (or near-as-damn) speakers with reasonable regularity, depending on where you are -- whereas in Oz, the nearest you're going to get is Alliance Francaise or something of that ilk where everyone keeps asking each other what time the next train leaves for Creteil. (Or my own favourite, "je voidrais troi trances au jambon.") And while it may be a mere excuse, I think that lack of contact is what at the same time hinders language learning and boosts its romanticism - we love the other, this mysterious, hyped thing but are unable to engage with it as meaningfully as people over here.

Not that that matters a rolling fuck now, but it DOES inform how you approach it. There's the mystique-of-distance thing that's played up in Australia incredibly... it hooks into that. If this were all about Australia...
 
 
illegalsmile
21:10 / 06.11.02
sorry if this has already been commented on:

"In most of the U.S., you can't graduate from high school without taking 2 years of a foreign language."

High school is too late to start teaching a compulsory langauge. minds are too formed and it becomes increasingly difficult to pick up a new language with the majority of the people. if it's going to be mandated, it should be done at an earlier age.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
05:32 / 07.11.02
I hope this isn't thread rot:

I have noticed in the last year or so that, when listening to anyone speaking in a language other than their mother tongue (not so much with english, but say an english-speaking friend of mine speaking in russian), I find that person irresistably sexy. Think Fish Called Wanda-stylee; it turns me on like nobody's business.
 
 
Pepsi Max
07:25 / 07.11.02
Roth> I was under the impression that Ozzie schools had shifted from French and German to Indonesian and Japanese. Which would make far more sense.
 
 
Pepsi Max
07:35 / 07.11.02
Loomis>

I would however say that, as far as feeling inferior because I only speak English, I find this rather an odd thing. Should I feel inferior because someone has had compulsory English for many years at school when I didn't have the option to learn a second language?

I don't know about the prestigeor otherwise of learning European languages. Many French people put down anglophones when they try to speak French. And there are cultural divisions between the Anglo world and the Continent that underpin this (politics, economics, religion, history).

However, when I was travelling in China, many local people were shocked that I could only speak a few phrases in Mandarin. "If we went abroad, we would make sure we spoke the language well", was the reply I frequently got.

I think some people resent the dominant position of English (or more accurately American) in the global scheme of things. It serves to underscore Western (or again American) global power. And may be you were either picking up on that unspoken vibe or recreating the guilt of the cultural oppressor in your own head.

I dunno.
 
 
sleazenation
08:41 / 07.11.02
pepsi - Hmm I'm not sure the line of thought with American as the language of the quasi-colonial oppressor is quite as simple as you make out. English is a bastard language borne out primarily of the mixture of languages of people who successfully invaded the The British Isles (of whom there were several prior to 1066). As such I don't think it is practical to think of it purely as the language of the British Empire.

Further, that America was formally a colony under the yolk of the British Empire and has
continued to use english, growing to a position of global economic dominance unrivaled by the British Empire.

Simply put the language that we call english is not pure, nor has it been solely adopted as a necessary tool of the oppressor. It has simply been the most successful language in terms of assimilating others and producing a workable synthesis.

How english will change as it continues to assimilate far eastern languages is anyones guess. Maybe the problems of a lack of a shared alphabet (an overhang of the Roman Empire) will prevent such as synthesis coming about. It will certainly be interesting finding out.
 
 
Loomis
09:21 / 07.11.02
Pepsi Max - I think some people resent the dominant position of English (or more accurately American) in the global scheme of things. It serves to underscore Western (or again American) global power. And may be you were either picking up on that unspoken vibe or recreating the guilt of the cultural oppressor in your own head.

Well the thing is, I didn't feel guilty, but many people I spoke to did, which is what got me thinking. Envious of other people's knowledge, yes, but guilt or inferiority, not so keen on that one.

I see your point though about the American aspect of English as the dumb tourist meme is most often attributed to Americans, and other English speakers often take pains to let it be known that they're not American. Moreover, Americans often feel they have to work harder than anyone else to speak the language of where they're travelling in order to escape the Hawaiian shirt/camera around neck cliche.
 
 
Pepsi Max
10:23 / 07.11.02
sleaze> I'm not sure that I've put my point across particularly well.

Simply put the language that we call english is not pure, nor has it been solely adopted as a necessary tool of the oppressor. It has simply been the most successful language in terms of assimilating others and producing a workable synthesis.

I was never suggesting that it is pure or that it is solely the tool of the oppressor. It is, however, associated in the minds of many people (in Asia at least) with the global hegemon. A hundred years ago it would have been England. Now it is the US. There are distinct advantages to learning English for many people. Access to the world's largest market (of services, products, education and finance) being one of them.

However, this can be counterbalanced with a feeling of resentment. The freedom from European colonial powers and the subsequent economic rise of Asia in the last 20 years (recent crises not withstanding) has created a renewed sense of national pride. People are proud to be Chinese or Vietnamese or Malay or Thai. And this pride covers their own culture and their own languages. Hence a tension between wanting to learn a language like English for selfbetterment and a sense that one shouldn't have to, isn't one's own language good enough?

This is particularly pronounced in a culture like China. 4000 years old, it views the US has an upstart. An upstart that currently outperforms it economically by 10 times (with a quarter of the population) and has the military capability to overrule China's own foreign policy (why do think Taiwan still exists?).

I am not suggesting a simplistic reduction of 'English' to 'Dominator'. Instead, I am trying to tease out some of the ambiguities reflecting its uptake.

How english will change as it continues to assimilate far eastern languages is anyones guess.

Indeed.
 
  
Add Your Reply