|
 |
Proportion of polyglots | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Polyglots |  | |
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6890 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes  Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 17 of 51 26 January 2006 at 5:41pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Btw. it's interesting that under the headline "THREE MOST WIDELY KNOWN LANGUAGES" on p5, English is ranked only 3rd in Ireland (IE) - after Irish and French! Even more awesome is Slovakia (SK) where English is not among the three most know languages. Of course, had Czech not been an option, it would have been no. 3, I'm sure. The Czechs, on the other hand, maintain that they "do not know" Slovakian (I assume all respondents were given the same options/questions). 25 % is also a high figure for Russian language skills, I think.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6946 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 18 of 51 26 January 2006 at 5:59pm | IP Logged | |||||
Depressing it may be, but certainly not surprising, and I would actually like to challenge the depressing part. Languages can be taught or studied based on (a) love of languages, (b) intellectual development / educational arguments, i.e., that languages are good for a person's mind and character even when there is no urgent practical need for them, (c) strong practical need. One can't expect everyone to love languages - everyone has his/her own favorite hobby. Where there is strong practical need, societies that have the resources have been investing quite heavily in language instruction in schools, in some cases quite successfully. Great Britain, on the other hand, is saddled with a lingua franca for its mother tongue, as well as a fairly big population (by the EU standards), so in this case one pretty much has to rely on the intellectual development arguments to get enthused about any other language. Sure, in the case of England one can argue that there is the EU and such, but at the end of the day, the practical need for an Englishman to know French is just not as compelling as that for a Norwegian to know English. So, in Britain one really does have to make the case for foreign languages on purely intellectual grounds to a far greater degree than in just about any other European country. (Looking beyond the EU, this applies even more strongly to the US.) But how compelling are the intellectual arguments in and by themselves on a societal level? That, IMHO, is the real question worth examining - after all, people were wringing their hands about Greek and Latin when those were tossed out summarily from most schools' curricula in order to have more science courses, if nothing else, and well, we are all still here. Edited by frenkeld on 27 January 2006 at 1:02am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Andy E Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7106 days ago 1651 posts - 1939 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, French | Message 19 of 51 27 January 2006 at 5:13am | IP Logged | |||||
It should be noted that this is "THREE MOST WIDELY KNOWN LANGUAGES" other than their mother tongue. 94% of respondents cited English as their "Mother Tongue" (multiple answers possible) in Eire earlier in the document - a lower percentage than the UK (92%) in fact. I have my grave doubts that the figure of 30% can be attributed to immigrants of whatever generation. According to the 2001 census only 8% of inhabitants of England and Wales (Scotland is dealt with separately) were not born in the British Isles. Also, when looking at Ethnic groups only 8.5% belong to groups that *may possibly* not have English as their sole mother tongue. Figures that tie up very nicely with the EU survey. In the EU survey 14% of respondents cited French and 6% cited German as other languages known - neither countries having a history of net migration to the UK. That leaves 10% to cater for other EU languages and languages brought into the UK via migration. No, I suspect that many of the 30% are citing the ability to say "dos cervezas, por favor" as language skills at the converational level. Andy. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Andy E Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7106 days ago 1651 posts - 1939 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, French | Message 20 of 51 27 January 2006 at 6:04am | IP Logged | |||||
Trust me, I definitely find it depressing :¬).
I'm going to ignore points a) & b) primarily because I happen to agree with the issues you raised - I had no particular love or interest (or indeed ability for that matter) for the sciences at school so doing them for reasons other than need was not something I considered. As for point c), I'm simply going to quote some extracts of the foreword of the widely respected Nuffield Foundation's 2000 report "Languages: the next generation". The UK has no automatic monopoly on political or economic success. In a world of alliances and partnerships we need to understand where others are coming from. In a competitive world we cannot afford to be without strong and complete skills: no skills no jobs. The need to strengthen our children's literacy, numeracy and technology skills is clear and we support it. Side by side with these should go the ability to communicate across cultures. It too is a key skill. There is, however, a challenge here. The situation is greatly complicated by the global role of English, now essentially the language of international science, law, banking, technology and much else. Our partners, whether in Europe or East Asia, have moved fast to recognise this. A dry analysis might say that we could rest on that. But, in a complex and disparate world in which modern communications have transformed personal contact across boundaries, is English really enough? In our view it is not. Capability in other languages a much broader range than hitherto and in greater depth is crucially important for a flourishing UK. The scale of what needs to be done has become ever more striking as our work has gone on. At the moment, by any reliable measure, we are doing badly. We talk about communication but don‘t always communicate. There is enthusiasm for languages but it is patchy. Educational provision is fragmented, achievement poorly measured, continuity not very evident. In the language of our time, there is a lack of joined-up thinking. The UK needs a change of policy and practice to fit us for the new millennium. We want to see language skills built into the culture and practice of British business. One way or another we must give our children a better start with languages and equip them to go on learning them through life. We should make the maximum use of the opportunities opened up by European links and funding. We need to aim higher and deliver better. In practical terms, this demands a coherent national strategy for languages, reflected (and earning its place) in our changing educational curriculum and driven with determination. Andy. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6890 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 21 of 51 27 January 2006 at 6:19am | IP Logged | |||||
Regarding the Irish, I probably was a bit too quick... As for language skills in Britain, I find it quite "depressing." Inability to communicate in other languages is to a large extent also inability to understand other cultures. For an EU-memberstate, and for the EU as well, this is problematic. But in a globalized economy it could pose even bigger problems. The same goes for the US. The Americans do not know how to deal with a globalized economy. 90 per cent of the population doesn't have a passport, virtually none speaks a foreign language. I do, however, have some faith that Britain will make some school reforms within the area of languages, since they will need it. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Andy E Triglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 7106 days ago 1651 posts - 1939 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, French | Message 22 of 51 27 January 2006 at 8:02am | IP Logged | |||||
One of the Nuffield Foundation's Recommendations was the following: 6. Invest in an early start The government should declare a long-term commitment to early language learning by setting up a national action programme for languages in primary school education, within the framework of the national strategy for languages. The government's response was to define an expected "entitlement" for Key Stage 2 (7-11 year olds) children to foreign language learning such that: By age 11 they should have the opportunity to reach a recognised level of competence on the Common European Framework and for that achievement to be recognised through a national scheme. The Key Stage 2 language learning programme must be delivered at least in part in class time. The target for this is 2010. Interestingly, at my son's school they are even more pro-active. He's 5 and already they do some French in school. Indeed when he was told that we were off to Spain on holiday this summer he said "Daddy, I'm afraid my brain doesn't have room for Spanish any more - it's full of French". At secondary school, the picture is slightly different. For children in Key Stage 3 (11-14) it is as follows: The national curriculum in England requires that all pupils at key stage 3 study at least one modern foreign language during timetabled hours. Schools must offer at least one official language of the European Union (except English) as a modern foreign language......Schools may, in addition, offer any other foreign language. For children in Key Stage 4 (14-19) any obligation to pursue the study of another language has been removed with no plans (AFAIK) to re-introduce it: Since September 2004 it is no longer a statutory requirement that all students study a modern foreign language at key stage 4. However, secondary educational establishments must retain the capacity to provide such schooling: Schools must provide access for all students to a minimum of one course in a modern foreign language that leads to a qualification approved under Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Schools must provide access to at least one such course in an official language of the European Union, but may in addition offer courses in any other modern foreign language that lead to approved qualifications. The rational for the removal is to allow the introduction of more vocational courses into school timetables. Andy. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6946 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 23 of 51 27 January 2006 at 12:55pm | IP Logged | |||||
The US is not doing all that badly in a globalized economy, which it had helped create in the first place. There are very serious challenges, of course, like trade imbalances, internal budget deficits, and some jobs going abroad, but the main reasons for these are not likely to be language-related.
One does not need a passport for Canada or Mexico, and as for travel to the rest of the world, 10 percent is not bad at all. No one in the US speaks a foreign language? Well, let us look at Europe. How many Europeans of European descent study non-European languages? Not many - most people likely learn the languages of neighboring countries and/or those of several major European states, plus English. It is easy to see why - that is where they travel. With this "regional languages + English" language learning model, the only language that makes practical sense to an average Americans is Spanish, and even that is tempered by the fact that there is a much greater disparity in the living standards between the US and its Southern neighbor(s) than between two typical West European countries. Still, there are many Hispanics living here, the interest in Spanish is definitely growing, and the educational system is starting to respond. So, while I personally do feel that a foreign language is essential to any child's education just for the mental stimulation and excitement it can provide, I find the actual arguments usually made in favor of teaching more foreing languages in the US far less compelling than people make them out to be. I also think that Europeans often fail to grasp the different reality of life in a country the size of the US with a single dominant language. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6890 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 24 of 51 27 January 2006 at 3:35pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Frenfeld, I am by no means trying to put the US down. My view or opinion of the US is in general rather neutral/positive, and I am not being critical or sceptic just for the sake of it. I do not want anything bad to happen to the average American, the American society or the country itself. I mean, why would I want that? My initial point was that for a country that has global influence and possibly interests as well, it is disturbing that the same country's citizens do not own a passport, have never been abroad or do not understand other cultures. I do not want to get into macroeconomics or politics (my own background) because this is neither the time nor place for that, but I maintain my point of view that the US compared to other Western European countries are worse equipped when it comes to dealing with a globalized economy: I could mention an endless row of EU brands: Rolex, Gucci, IKEA etc. They're all exported worldwide and there cannot be any doubts about the export strength of the European econom(-y/-ies). Apart from a few brands (Coca Cola, MacD) and cultural exports, are there any real American brands? I never saw any; I don't really know any. If OPEC started quoting oil prices in Euros rather than USD, what would happen to the US economy? If Japan or Europe wanted to cash in on US state bonds, how would the Americans pay? In gold? What would happen to the USD and the US economy? If the Euro keeps on winning terrain as an international currency, how will the USD and the US economy survive? Of course this is a long and far from one-sided discussion, but i just wanted to illustrate some points here. Obviously, the US and EU are so closely connected in the economic spheres, so Europe would sufer as well. But then again China and India are both emerging markets. Btw. the US didn't help build the globalized economy. Ever since Marco Polo and Columbus the economy was globalized.
2 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. |
