|
 |
OK, so just what is a polyglot? | ||
Tags: Polyglot | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Polyglots |  | |
| Zwlth Super Polyglot Senior Member United States Joined 5229 days ago 154 posts - 320 votes  Speaks: English*, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Arabic (Written), Dutch, Swedish, Portuguese, Latin, French, Persian, Greek | Message 17 of 38 20 July 2011 at 5:48am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
Iversen, the term "-lingual" is thoroughly established and the distinction between it and "-glot" is not at all simplistic. Have you ever spent much time in the linguistics section of a large research library? I don't know what call number system you use there in Denmark so I can't tell you just where to look, but if the shelves are at all organized, you will find that the books having to do with first language acqusition are grouped together, apart from those having to do with second language acquisition, and also that bilingualism, multilingualism, language teaching methodology, language learning skills, etc., all have their own groupings (you won't find anything for polyglottery, though).
But, let's take a simple case: Juan grows up in Los Angeles speaking Spanish and English in equal doses. John grows up in Montana speaking only English, but learns Spanish pretty darn well in college, travelling abroad, etc. By any and all socio-linguistic classifications, Juan is considered bilingual. By no scheme of socio-linguistic classification would John describe himself or would anyone else describe John as bilingual. Maybe John's Spanish vocabulary range is wider than Juan's, maybe his grammar is more precise, maybe he can write better, maybe he would be a much better Spanish teacher, maybe he flat out knows Spanish better than Juan - it doesn't matter, he's not bilingual. He will never have Juan's accent, he will never be able to code-switch like Juan does, he will never have Juan's natural and instictive feel for Spanish. Those are the things he would need to be considered bilingual. And those are things you only get from growing up with multiple languages. Now, take these scenarios and make them more complex. Have one person speak one language with his mother, another with his father, another in school, another on the streets, etc., etc. That person will be quadrilingual, quinilingual, sexilingual, or whatever. Have another person know that same set of languages as a result of studying them all in a state of physical and mental maturity. That person will be a polyglot. As I wrote before, in a world of billions, there are bound to be millions of blurry and fuzzy cases like you yourself. However, the general rule still holds. Look at the forest before you focus on this or that fascinating individual tree. Acquisition versus learning, that is the difference between being mutilingual and being a polyglot. Finally, the cut-off for developing true native mastery of a language is indeed puberty, not 5 years, and certainly not 6 months. Any valid research suggesting these latter figures is, like you, focusing on interesting exceptions to the rule rather than upon the rule itself. Journeyer, what on earth does it mean to say that we need standards, but that we do not need to agree upon those standards?!?!?! 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Journeyer Triglot Senior Member United States tristan85.blogspot.c Joined 6871 days ago 946 posts - 1110 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, German Studies: Sign Language | Message 18 of 38 20 July 2011 at 8:24pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
I would. I consider them both bilingual. The term of monolingual applies to a person who speaks one language, and I don't see why it can't be done away with once a person learns another language, and thus is bi-(or more)-lingual. I admit to not being well-versed in linguistic literature about this, but how many languages a person is born with doesn't really matter. Bilingual from birth people can lose fluency language, and are they still bilingual then? I would suggest they've become monolingual.
Both are multilingual, both are polyglots. I don't understand why "naturalness" of knowing the language from birth is such a big issue. Maybe some of the finest points aren't at the L2 learner's fingertips (but maybe they are, they are not impossible to learn) but these distinctions seem to be a case of splitting hairs.
Well, I guess I mean there is no "Law of Polyglottery" but that there ought to be a somewhat unified description. By that I mean someone who speaks AT LEAST more than two or three languages fluently. Personally I think there ought to be more, but again, that's a matter of opinion. But both "poly-" and "multi-" mean many and in most people's opinions 2 or 3 don't really qualify as many. I also think that to be a polyglot, a person ought to speak those languages fluently. Now, that's an example of a fuzzy word, as has been discussed to death and a half here, so that's why I said each person probably has a slightly different interpretation of fluency, but I laid down what I thought my ideas were in my last post. I would add though that I think really strict standards like perfect accent and native-like grasp of the language are unnecessary and probably unrealistic. I view it as more of a nuanced thing, rather than a cut-and-dried definition. Just look around you. People agree that there are polyglots (if they even know what that word means) but not everyone can agree on what makes a polyglot. So my view is more of an observation, rather than a decree. Hope that helps. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 19 of 38 24 July 2011 at 12:41am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Plenty of people would describe John as bilingual. The 'socio-linguistic classification' system of colloquial language use by non-specialists is a clear counterexample.
The problem with that is that it's simply not true. Plenty of people have a natural and instinctive feel for at least one non-native language; it shows through their spontaneous, playful, creative usage of it. Some seem very adept at code switching (but this seems stigmatized, so it's far harder to guess at prevalence - but wikipedia says "Multilinguals - people who speak more than one language - sometimes use elements of multiple languages in conversing with each other"). And it definitely happens that one meets language learners who native speakers insist must be native speakers, based on their accent - it helps if they've learned an accent from another town or country, and a professional phonetician with some equipment and time can probably hunt some glitch up, but... And, on the other side, it's not that rare to find native speakers who don't seem to have a good feel for at least one of their languages (sometimes even their only one). Plenty of native bilinguals seem unable (or unwilling) to code-switch. And plenty of people don't acquire a native accent in one or more of their native languages - some have speech impediments, some have hearing problems, and some have a drastic change in their linguistic environment during early formative years.
Why insist that the forest is made entirely of trees? There are plenty of flowers. Having models is useful. Insisting that the model is reality, and that reality is somehow flawed for not matching the model is putting the cart far before the horse. Discounting exceptions to a model without first looking thoroughly at prevalence is a great way to keep models which don't mirror reality, but isn't a good strategy.
That's nice, clean, simple, and probably wrong.
Have you actually read the relevant literature? There are numerous 'critical periods' related to language learning. The 6 month figure is well-established for phonetic criteria, and is actually the most solidly supported of the bunch. As for definitions of 'true native mastery', 'learning', 'acquisition', 'puberty', etc, while they're all very interesting, I think I'll just return to reading Khalil Gibran. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6706 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 20 of 38 24 July 2011 at 2:09am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Let's take the last question first: I have an academic degree in French and Comparative Literature so I have probably spent more time in academic libraries than most people here. But I don't find it relevant for the discussion. You are right that there are definitions for 'glots' and 'linguals', and in principle you should be able always to say what is what. In reality the world isn't that simple, and that's what I have been trying to get across. 'Glots' have learnt their languages after puberty and 'linguals' have learnt them as native speakers while they were children. However in the space between these two extremes we have the whole gamut of people who have learnt their language late, but well, and those who have learnt a native language and then more or less abandoned it (or at least not exhausted its potential). And even though it is good to have clear defintions, it is also a good idea once in a while to leave the library codes behind and look at the real world. Edited by Iversen on 24 July 2011 at 2:25am 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Zwlth Super Polyglot Senior Member United States Joined 5229 days ago 154 posts - 320 votes Speaks: English*, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Arabic (Written), Dutch, Swedish, Portuguese, Latin, French, Persian, Greek | Message 21 of 38 26 July 2011 at 4:12am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
|
Iversen, thank you for confirming that "[I am] right that there are definitions for 'glots' and 'linguals', and in principle you should be able always to say what is what," and further that "it is good to have clear definitions." Those are the only points I was trying to make here. I myself have conceded from the beginning of this argument that there are plenty of unclear cases.
As for library comments from both you and me: for my part, I was not trying to imply that you didn't know what you were talking about, although upon rereading I realize it might come across that way, and I am sorry for that. Rather, I was referring to my own experience doing research in European libraries where books were cataloged, not by subject matter, but by date of acqusition, and in case you or anyone else interested in this topic was interested, to point you towards the Library of Congress codes starting arond P115 where you can see how books on various sub-themes of lingualism and acqusition are grouped together. Yes, you are right, I do spend too much time in libraries, writing my doctoral dissertation in applied linguistics, which is why I have become active here, in an attempt to get some fresh air and different perspectives. Volte, I don't know whence the smug snideness in your letter comes, but as I just indicated, I have indeed read more of the relevant literature in this area that I care to remember. The 6 month phonetic critical period is indeed widely banted about, but it is far from being well-established in the sense of being universally acknowledged. Let's grant that well-designed research has been carried out so as to control all other variables and establish in a valid fashion that infants under 6 months react to phonetic stimuli in a fashion different from those 6 months and over. That proves only that and nothing more. For, when it comes to meeting real people, given that I myself know at least a dozen individuals who were not exposed to English until late childhood or even pre-pubescence and yet who sound exactly like people who have always had it and only it around them, I can see that this 6 month finding has no obvious practical application. By the way, I, too, admire and enjoy Gibran, but I thought this was a forum and a room devoted to matters linguistics and not mystical/poetic? Journeyer, there are a number of reasons why the "naturalness" of knowing languages through acquisition rather than through learning is such a big issue. I think I already alluded to the one that concerns me the most: although it would seem like being naturally multilingual should be a springboard to becoming a polyglot, this is, in point of fact, rather exceptional. If we accept the general estimate that more than half of humanity is naturally bi- or multilingual, then shouldn't at least half of all "glots" to be as well? However, if you go systeamtically through their biographies, you'll find that they tend to start out as monolinguals. It is as if being multilingual is an innoculation against polyglottery. Say now, how can I go about quoting you all in boxes and responding to you all the way you all do to me? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Journeyer Triglot Senior Member United States tristan85.blogspot.c Joined 6871 days ago 946 posts - 1110 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, German Studies: Sign Language | Message 22 of 38 26 July 2011 at 4:52am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
I think she meant that she was just going to get over-involved in the discussion, rather than try to distract from the topic of language. Beg your pardon, Volte, if I'm overstepping my boundaries for answering here.
Of course there is a difference between those who are born multilingual and those who learn their languages later in life. But as I said, I focus more on what the person can do rather than how they acquired their languages (even if I am a little envious of how they may have gotten them! :-D). As far as terms go, I concede that in scientific circles maybe you need distinguishing terms. But for most of this, this is really splitting hairs in the practical world. Being multilingual is not an inoculation against polyglottery, because, as I stated, I see no distinction when the spaghetti hits the fan. I respect your views here, but I think this is coming dangerously close to a pedantic and penny-enny discussion. It seems to me we both have our opinions that we are comfortable with. :-)
Why, just hit the "quote" button at the bottom of any response you want and then you can edit it and copy/paste the code. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Volte Tetraglot Senior Member Switzerland Joined 6442 days ago 4474 posts - 6726 votes Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese | Message 23 of 38 26 July 2011 at 2:13pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
You're not overstepping anything. I was simply using Gibran (poorly, apparently) as an example of a non-native speaker of English who ended up writing it an incredibly high level. While I'm not entirely enamoured by his content, his style and word usage are absolutely incredible. If my reply came across as snide, I apologize - that was not its intent. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||
| Zwlth Super Polyglot Senior Member United States Joined 5229 days ago 154 posts - 320 votes Speaks: English*, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Arabic (Written), Dutch, Swedish, Portuguese, Latin, French, Persian, Greek | Message 24 of 38 27 July 2011 at 4:13am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||
Thank you!
Apology accepted. If that is what you meant, though, then Joseph Conrad would have been a better choice for making your point, as he had no exposure to English until he was an adult. As for Gibran, who immigrated to the U.S. and was immersed in English at the age of 12, he is actually a case in point for the ability of pre-pubescents to still acquire native mastery. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
