|
 |
Definition of Polyglot | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Polyglots |  | |
| BiaHuda Triglot Groupie Vietnam Joined 5159 days ago 97 posts - 127 votes  Speaks: English*, Spanish, Vietnamese Studies: Cantonese | Message 17 of 29 16 October 2010 at 7:26pm | IP Logged | |||||
Agreed; but perhaps we could help this lad with his paper. Is the whole polyglottery thing a modern phenomenon with it's basis in the internet, or is there more historical evidence for this? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6499 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 18 of 29 16 October 2010 at 8:27pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I have spent an hour looking through "The art and science of learning languages", and it was certainly interesting, but I didn't learn much more from it than I do from the discussions here at HTLAL. And specifically the book doesn't provide any explanations as to why some people become 'high-achievers'. There were references to a number of polyglots in the introduction, but the advice in the following chapters were fairly basic, aimed at people who just need to avoid some common errors in language learning. So that book won't help us much with a clearer definition of the notion of 'polyglot'.
I personally think that we shouldn't choose one specific number of languages - the fuzziness of level definitions plus the differences in knowledge need to master different languages makes any direct comparison based solely on numbers totally irrelevant. Polyglots are just people who know'many' languages, and 10 is 'more many' than 4, but if those four are Mandarin, Navaho, Old Greek and English then I wouldn't mind calling that person a polyglot, not by the sheer number of languages, but because they represent such widespread knowledge of different languages that it makes up for the relatively low number. However I do think that the definition should stick to active languages, i.e. those that you can think, speak and write well enough to make them useful for practical purposes. There is certainly also a value in being able to understand spoken and written sources in many languages, but purely 'passive' skills should be marked as such. For instance I have read and translated texts in Old Norse, Old Gutnish, Faroese, Old French, Old Occitan, Corsican, Sardic, several kinds of Romantsch, Serbian/Croate and a number of dialects of my 'major' languages, and with some difficulty and the use of dictionaries and grammars I can also put short written messages together in most of these - but they have no place on my language list, because I don't have any kind of fluency in them - I can read them because I know some related languages. So I'm not impressed with a long list of passive languages - only active languages are worth counting. Edited by Iversen on 16 October 2010 at 8:36pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6739 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 19 of 29 16 October 2010 at 8:39pm | IP Logged | |||||
Passive knowledge can also vary in level. Cognate driven reading in a language one doesn't really know well even passively is one thing, being able to read literature with adequate grasp of the nuances is another story, and being able to translate from the language professionally is a yet higher level. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Hardheim Diglot Newbie United States Joined 4995 days ago 34 posts - 78 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Spanish, French | Message 20 of 29 16 October 2010 at 9:16pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I see this less as an issue of number of languages,but the well-rounded nature of your selection of languages. I wouldn't necessarily consider someone a polyglot that speaks French, Spanish, Italian, Portugese and Romanian. My list for well rounded set of languages:
1. Cultural - Does your family speak a foreign language. This should be the first language on your list. You'll probably get more use out of this language than any other speaking with family members. 2. Regional - What is the most influential language in your part of the world outside of your native language. 3. Global - The most important global language. This should be English on everyone's list. 4. Ancient - The most important ancient language to your culture. For me this, this would be German for cultural, Spanish for regional,and Latin for ancient. English is my native language, so requirement 3 is already taken care of. I think this a foundation people should shoot for to consider themselves a polyglot. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6499 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 21 of 29 16 October 2010 at 10:29pm | IP Logged | |||||
I agree, - and the kind of hard-won passive Latin competence that allows you to read Roman poetry in the original is certainly something different from my ability to read a newspaper in Faroese because it resembles Icelandic. But it is still a passive language. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| mcjon77 Senior Member United States Joined 6407 days ago 193 posts - 248 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Egyptian), French | Message 22 of 29 17 October 2010 at 12:57am | IP Logged | |||||
The problem I see is that the definition you and Gunnemark both share seems to be less of a "polyglot" and more of a "linguaphile" (lover of languages). Being "into a lot of languages" without any real skill in those languages doesn't strike me as being very impressive. Lets use your example above. How much study would it take for an English speaker to get to a C2 level in French, Spanish, AND German? Here is an example of someone speaking just C1 level English: Woman on the right speaking C1 level English The woman in the video below is speaking C2 level English: C1/C1+ and C2 level in English Now lets look at an example of A1 level English: Woman speaking A1 level English Here is another example with two men speaking at the A2 level: Two men speaking A2 level English So a person who, in addition to her native language, speaks at a C2 in 3 foreign languages is not a polyglot, but a person who is an A1 in 9 foreign languages is a polyglot? It seems that we are both raising and lowering the bar for polyglots at the same time. To be a polyglot you must study/speak at least 10 languages, but it is OK if you suck at 9 of them? I guess part of my issue with the idea is that I understand how easy it is to get to a spoken level in a foreign language where you can REALLY impress non-speakers of that language and even some native speakers, if they do not push you, and still not be anywhere near all but the most basic levels of comprehension of that language. Heck, with 90 half hour lessons of Pimsleur, one would have little trouble impressing people with their language skills. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6739 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 23 of 29 17 October 2010 at 1:08am | IP Logged | |||||
There is a misunderstanding here. I agreed with Gunnemark's implicit suggestion that even reading skills alone may be sufficient to qualify a language towards polyglottery, but my notion is that you better read well (e.g., reading Latin poetry as per Iversen's post) if you want that language to count. Generally, I imagine a polyglot will speak some of his or her languages well, but not necessarily all of them. As a practical matter, I doubt you will find many people who read 10 foreign languages at a high proficiency level and can't speak a single one of them. Edited by frenkeld on 17 October 2010 at 1:10am 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| mcjon77 Senior Member United States Joined 6407 days ago 193 posts - 248 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Egyptian), French | Message 24 of 29 17 October 2010 at 1:27am | IP Logged | |||||
Thanks for the clarification. That makes much more sense. I guess part of the difference in opinion deals with our own image/idea of what a polyglot is and does. While I have an appreciation of reading, personally speaking and listening have always taken precedence for me. I acknowledge that this is just a personal preference of mine, and not some absolute definition of polyglots. I guess the best way to explain the difference would be to give an example. For some people, their image of a polyglot is someone who can walk into one of the world's great libraries, pull several books in different languages and effortlessly read them. For others (like me), their image of a polyglot is someone who can go to the United Nations dinner party and effortlessly move from person to person, having interesting conversations in different languages. Different strokes for different folks. :) 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. |
