|
 |
You are not a real polyglot if... | ||
Tags: Polyglot | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5350 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes  Speaks: Spanish* | Message 113 of 299 19 October 2013 at 7:31pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
But precisely because of "feelings" -particularly of the nationalistic kind- the languages that you and I enjoy so much learning today came into being in the 19th century. Particularly in south-eastern Europe, awakening from centuries of foreign domination, establishing and cultivating one dialect as a national tongue was seen as a crucial, even existential task, and not only did it pay off in terms of allowing the emergence of national communities, it produced some of the best literatures we can relish today. We must never forget language is a human phenomenon subject to all those emotions that make us such, not a cold dry fact like geology. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 114 of 299 19 October 2013 at 8:20pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Indeed, it was because of nationalist impulses that many of our target languages assumed their current forms. The problem is that nationalism is liable to screw up and adversely affect those not associable with the "right"/governing tribe. This highlight of differences can be linguistic, spiritual or on imagined distinctions of biology regardless of the fact that human languages at their most elemental are produced orally by exercising vocal cords and oral muscles (and in some cases with body language) in beings with 46 chromosomes, and whose bodily functions are all applications of the same phenomena analyzable broadly under (bio)chemistry and (bio)physics).
When it comes to linguistics, nationalism has a mixed record at best. It is also ultimately because of nationalism that Norwegianization was enforced in Norway until the 1980s all the while accelerating the decline of the Saamic languages. It is also ultimately because of nationalism that some modern Croatian linguistic planners and linguists have justified their efforts in berating or stigmatizing those who do not speak "properly" (i.e. they speak like Serbs and are cast as disloyal to Croats or more accurately are imagined bogeymen of the Croatian government). Language is a human phenomenon, but so is human biology. Just because something is associated with humanity, doesn't mean that one should willfully do cherry-picking with analysis and make conclusions that are less helpful or more contentious than the starting points. When it comes to this particular discussion, I return to the point that language (i.e. the building blocks of the output from someone's vocal cords or hands) need not be split to correspond with biological or mental (e.g. spiritual affiliation or mythology/selective historical memory) differences in the speakers of those languages. Only with strained arguments or drawing on non-linguistic criteria could one be a polyglot on the strength of be able to use variants (implied mutual intelligibility between them that's nearly total with very high or even total overlap in what constitutes a grammatical utterance be it in choice of lexicon, syntax and/or arrangement or use of morphological elements) of a pluricentric language at a high level. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 115 of 299 19 October 2013 at 11:50pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I have said in various ways, this rather tiresome debate boils down to two things:
1, Language taxonomy should be based purely on linguistic features that are subsumed under the umbrella of mutual intelligibility, however this is defined. 2. The names or labels of national or official languages are the product of social and political processes that do not always coincide with linguistic accuracy. In the case at hand, no one is disputing that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montanegrin are currently highly mutually intelligibile. Since that is the case, why are there four labels for the same language? Why do the Bosnians insist on calling this language Bosnian. And the Serbs Serbian? And the Croatians Croatian? And the Montanegrins Montanegrin? They must be very ignorant of linguistics, very stupid or just out to make life difficult for the world. Why don't they simply agree to use a common name? These countries came into existence following a tragic war and conserable ethnic connflict that saw the massacre of many (innocent) people on all sides of the conflict. Each country wants to establish its own national identity with the usual mechanisms such as flag, national anthem, armed forces, government,, education system, etc. I may be very naive, but it seems to me only logical that each country would want to give itself a national label for the language spoken within its borders. What are the choices? 1. An acronym: BSCM/SC. 2. A variant of the old name: Bosnian Serbo-Croatian, Serbian Serbo-Croatian, etc. 3, Recycle an old name: Bosnian ex-Yugoslavian, Serbian ex-Yugoslavian, etc. 4. In coordination with the other countries, invent a completely new name: Bosnian X, Serbian X, etc. 5. Use the name of the country as the basis for the name of the official language. Take your choice. I may be wrong but @Chung seems to be in favor of Option 1. I respect that. For me option 5 is the simplest and corresponds to a sense of history. All the other countries either have done it, would like to do it or have historical reasons for not doing it. France has French, Bulgaria has Bulgarian, With the break up of the Soviet Union, all sorts of national languages came to the fore. The Estonians reinvigorated Estonian. The Latvians Latvian, the Ukrainians Ukrainian. Etc. So why should the Bosnians not have Bosnian and the Croatians Croatian? What's wrong with this? These are official languages. Official languages do not have to be entirely distinctive languages that nobody else speaks. They are simply the official languages of certain states. I don't see the problem. The only question worth discussing in my opinion is what do we call a person who, let's say, has passed the CEFR C2 exams in Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian and Montonegrin? Is this person a light polygot, a fraudster or a legitimate polyglot? I tend to say a legitimate polyglot simply because the person has demonstrated certified ability in four recognized languages.Now some people will say that this is unfair and that a person who speaks New Zealand English, Australian English, American English and Canadian English could also claim to be a polyglot. Sure, if those are four recognized languages, Are they or are they not? Obviously, I am now totally cognizant, especially after this thread, that studying for the C2 exam in Bosnian gives a huge leg-up for the other exams. Now, here is where this is important. If our polyglot is applying for a job in Bosnia, what should they put on their CV under Languages spoken? I would think that Bosnian would be the smart choice. If that same person is applying for a job in Serbia, I don't think it would be wise to put down Bosnian instead of Serbian. If that person is applying for a job with an interntional organization such as the International Red Cross Committee in that area, might not it be wise to list all four languages? What exactly is the problem? Edited by s_allard on 20 October 2013 at 12:14am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 116 of 299 20 October 2013 at 1:41am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually we are. Are they languages or parts of one language (or standardizations taken from the same sub-dialect)?
Is this rhetorical or something?
These impulses have been present before the rise and fall of Yugoslavia. What happened in the 1990s was the most recent and blatant expression of these desires. The linguistic manipulation has basically been around ever since anyone has wanted to establish some standard, and then redefine what constitutes the language of "us" versus "them".
This isn't as neat a comparison as implied. Whereas the fragmentation of BCMS/SC corresponded to wars and redrawing of borders, it's dubious to find parallels with the fall of the USSR. Estonian, Latvian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek etc. existed before the creation of the USSR. There was definitely a return to prominence of these languages but they're not some sort of renaming of presumed variants of a supra-Russian language. Perhaps the only irony is that for some of these successor languages (e.g. Kazakh, Kyrgyz), their modern script is based on Cyrillic because of the policies enacted during the time of the USSR, with a certain resistance nowadays to switching scripts to Latin-based ones because of inertia or costs of reprinting/reeducation.
Scratch beneath the surface or change in nomenclature and it's the same old language. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck etc., then assigning how many names one wants to it doesn't invalidate it from being anything but a duck.
I'd say a pseudo-polyglot and if I'm in a bad mood, then a fraudster. When the variants of BCMS/SC indeed diverge to the point of being less than fully mutually intelligible, then things change and it'd be a lot clearer that these different standard languages are indeed different languages (i.e. less than fully mutually intelligible communicative codes). The irony is that it may be the prescriptivists holding sway in the language planning bodies that are decelerating the process of divergence which would lead to cherished goal of establishing that what they oversee indeed corresponds to distinct languages. See this article by Mate Kapović where on hand, Croatian prescriptivists eagerly underline or magnify or even make up any difference relative to the other standards (especially Serbian) but on the other berate ordinary Croats who have "sloppy" grammar by using colloquialisms or contractions. If those colloquialisms weren't proscribed and instead allowed to flourish, the resulting divergence would make their native speech less intelligible to the neighboring peoples without the overtly ethnically-tinged intervention and judgements masquerading as guidance on "good" grammar or "proper" style.
They're recognized standard languages, but that is different from their being recognized languages. Languages exist without standardization (e.g. Pite Saami).
For a linguistically-informed person, it preys on the ignorance of the prospective hiring manager. Again based on my experience of that candidate who introduced himself as multilingual in his covering letter and then listed "English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian" on his resume, I basically discounted his application and kept my eyes peeled for someone more modest, but otherwise still equally impressive in the other skills that I was looking for in a new hire. Throwing a bunch of names and hoping that I equal them to linguistic breadth compared to someone who puts fewer names of different languages under the heading "Languages" is bad form to say the least. If I were confronted with some resumes from ex-Yugoslavs, here's how I would approach them when it came to linguistic qualifications: - Candidate 1) English, Serbo-Croatian (bilingual - let's see what else he/she has to offer in the resume and/or the interviews) - Candidate 2) English, Croatian (bilingual - like candidate 1, let's see what else he/she has to offer in the resume and/or the interviews) - Candidate 3) English, Serbian, Spanish (trilingual, more languages than the first two candidates but let's see what else he/she has to offer in the resume and/or the interviews) - Candidate 4) English, Slovenian, Croatian (trilingual, more languages than the first two candidates but let's see what else he/she has to offer in the resume and/or the interviews) - Candidate 5) English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (bilingual not tetralingual, nice try kiddo, and this one is already at a bit of a disadvantage with me in trying to pull a fast one, however he/she might redeem him/herself if other elements in the resume and/or interviews blow away those of the other candidates. He/she can't be just marginally better than the others to beat them or even get serious consideration.) - Candidate 6) English, Hungarian, Montenegrin, Serbian (trilingual not tetralingual, again nice try kiddo, and this one is already at a bit of a disadvantage with me in trying to pull a fast one, however he/she might redeem him/herself if other elements in the resume and/or interviews blow away those of the other candidates. He/she can't be just marginally better than the others to beat them or even get serious consideration.) If I were interviewing candidates 5 and 6, I may even toy with them and make them "translate" something published in one variant into another variant to see how it goes. >:-) 6 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kartof Bilingual Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 5071 days ago 391 posts - 550 votes Speaks: English*, Bulgarian*, Spanish Studies: Danish | Message 117 of 299 20 October 2013 at 2:13am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Really, so if someone had the audacity to put the variants of a language as separate languages, perhaps taking up one line on a resume, you'd automatically discount them? Seems pretty shallow and insignificant considering the many other skills and responsibilities that come with any job.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 118 of 299 20 October 2013 at 2:55am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yup, because it says something about the character of the candidate in hoping that throwing out more names or designations will impress me (or at least give an edge over candidates of otherwise equal ability based on what's revealed elsewhere in the resume and interviews). It preys on one's linguistic ignorance. As I noted in my previous post, I'm willing to give a shot to such people, but they better be damned impressive compared to other candidates when it comes to the other qualifications (basically that person has to more than compensate for his/her deception by overwhelming me and other candidates by what else he/she can offer apart from trying a sleight of hand with linguistic nomenclature). It's not a simple matter of automatic disqualification because of one sleight of hand (although it doesn't reflect well on the candidate for me). As it happened with this dubious polyglot (diglot for sure), I took on another candidate anyway who turned out very well for us in spite of the fact that this person "only" had two languages in English and Spanish (in addition to all other qualifications) compared to the one with four "languages" in "English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian" of comparable qualifications. In an another universe it would have worked out differently if that dubious polyglot were an uncontestable polyglot by having 4 languages listed as "English, Serbian, Bulgarian, Slovenian" (i.e nothing as farcial as naming 3 variants of 1 language to bulk up the resume) and still had the same qualifications as the successful candidate. 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 119 of 299 20 October 2013 at 3:13am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm really having a problem understanding what the debate is about. History tells us the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia disintegrated following the Yugoslav wars into six independent countries. Whether we like this or not, this is what happened. So far we all agree. The six independent countries decided to each have an official language. They named their official language after the country. Is this a problem? For me it's not. For the people of the various countries concerned, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But these seems to be a problem for some people here at HTLAL. For whatever reason that I can't fathom some people seem to object strongly to the fact that these six independent countries each decided to choose a different label for their language. Is the problem really the choice of different names or maybe a nostalgia for the good old days of Yugoslavia? Well, times have changed and waits for no one. We now have six recent countries and six recent official language names. Notice that I'm not talking about how different or similar the languages are. I really think that it's irrelevant. What is at issue here is respect for the wishes of the people of the country. Who am I to say to the Bosnians that the Bosnian language does not exist and that what they really speak is Serbo-Croatian? Frankly, I don't understand this nostalgia for Serbo-Croatian. Just as the country Yugoslavia did not sink into the sea but was divided up, Serbo-Croatian was divided up into four official languages. The terms Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croatian have become historical terms. As for our poor polyglot who is being maligned here, I really don't see what the problem is. I have given my reasons for ascribing polyglot status to someone who has certified knowledge of these official languages. If you've passed CEFR exams for four official language, you're a polyglot. Obviously, ethnic tensions being what they are in this part of the world, anybody who claims to speak multiple languages has to be careful when applying for jobs. As I pointed out earlier, you may want to choose how you talk about your language skills on your job application form. In some quarters, it may not be such a good idea to say that you speak Bosnian or Montenegrin. And if you write down all four languages maybe everybody will get angry at your for different reasons. If on the other hand someone were to write here at HTLAL that they speak these four languages even without CEFR certification, would I get my nose out of joint and start a petition to have them kicked off the site? Certainly not. Edit: changed "misaligned" to "maligned" Edited by s_allard on 20 October 2013 at 1:03pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 120 of 299 20 October 2013 at 8:38am | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Basically it boils to whether how much one allows for the political or non-linguistic in linguistics. It's obvious that I have very low tolerance for such interference, however I have no problem with renaming per se. Where it becomes debatable or controversial is when the political or non-linguistic element gets pride of place in a linguistic matter.
I also don't object that each of the successor states of Yugoslavia have renamed what was once called Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian with names that are tied to the nation-states involved. What I do have a problem with is passing off these new entities as different languages (not different official languages nor different standard languages) with the associated drop in intelligibility or rise in divergence as occurs when talking about separate languages such as French and Catalan or Finnish and Estonian, or more blatantly Guaraní and Indonesian. To the uninformed, seeing someone professing fluency or competency in Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian may seem more impressive than seeing someone professing fluency in Slovenian, Bulgarian and Croatian just on the strength of the number of names bandied about. Because all Slavonic languages except Russian are effectively less-commonly taught languages to foreigners, there's a substantial chance for the casual foreign observer who's also likely unfamiliar with Balkan history to conclude that Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian are so different on the strength of different names so as to imply some above average linguistic ability in the person making such a claim of multilingualism. As a language geek, I find this unconscionable since it overrides the structural linguistic evidence showing that we're still at a stage where the divergence is minimal within BCMS/SC. As it relates to Solfrid's original question about what constitutes a real polyglot or not, the first reservation tended to be that one is not a real polyglot if one's abilities are restricted to knowing survival level phrases in many languages (hence the disputes over the veracity of Cesare M and Moses McCormick or even Ziad Farzah). The second reservation is now that being a polyglot is not a game where one tries to accumulate as many names of languages in one's profile as possible even when those names of languages refer to variants derived from the same sub-dialect, or are labels for one language in different guises. A variation of this second theme could not only be playing a game with variants, but also including lesser-known names in a personal description without qualification. For example, I wouldn't necessarily be lying (although I'd be playing a bit of a dirty trick) by reporting that I am fluent in French and ranska (i.e. the Finnish term for "French") and/or have intermediate knowledge of Hungarian and Magyar (the latter is a less common term for "Hungarian" in addition to being the native form of "Hungarian"), and have been studying Lappish and Northern Saami (the former is an obsolete term for any Saamic language, and using it now is about as precise or useful as referring to Afrikaans, English, Frisian, Dutch and German together as "West Germanic". But if the name of the game is to try to get an edge for a job application, impress the uninformed or let language classification become subordinated to political whim then I suppose that such chicanery with nomenclature is permissible... 5 persons have 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. |
