|
 |
We, who manage to focus on ONE language | ||
Tags: Number of Languages | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4516 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes  Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 25 of 142 21 August 2013 at 2:53pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I studied Dutch, English, French, German and Latin at school.
Apart from Latin, which isn't spoken unless you're a neolatinist, I speak all of these, and in no small part due to studying them concomitantly. And I went into engineering. 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||
 emk Diglot Moderator United States Joined 5341 days ago 2615 posts - 8806 votes Speaks: English*, FrenchB2 Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian Personal Language Map | Message 26 of 142 21 August 2013 at 3:31pm | IP Logged | ||
I feel like there's two different things going on. I'll explain this in terms of the CEFRL scale, but any other metrics would work just as well. 1) The time and effort required go up with each CEFRL level. C1 is more work than B2, and B2 is more work than B1. And for those of use who rely heavily on native materials and speaking, the higher levels are only accessible if we can find enough books, DVDs, people to speak to, and so on. 2) Significant payoffs start as early as B1, when you generally assume you can travel in the country with very little use of your native language. But there are, of course, substantial payoffs for having what Khatzumoto calls "a few sharp knives", languages where you can keep up with well-read native speakers without any problem. Personally, I care about English and French. I'd rather sink 100 hours into French for a small improvement than invest 20 hours in Spanish for a dramatic one. But that's because I'm married to a French speaker, I live a few hours from Montreal, and I'd rather be really good at French than decent at a handful of languages. But not everybody has the same cost-benefit calculations. If somebody likes to travel a lot, or works in the tourist industry, it's useful to have a bunch of B1 languages. If somebody loves a language, but doesn't have much opportunity to use it, then B2 active skills and C1 passive skills are a great combination—that's enough to enjoy native media comfortably and to accomplish any practical task. And then there are people like Serpent, who are madly in love with half a dozen languages, and who want to start them early and study them for life. Of course, this is HTLAL, so there's a third option, which is to be really good at a lot of languages. Over the years, I've seen people here who can carry on friendly conversations in their 10th- or 20th-strongest language. I feel privileged to have met such giants, even if only in passing. I would never dream of telling ProfArguelles or Iversen that their language-learning strategy is wrong—I'd rather learn from them. 12 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 4818 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian | Message 27 of 142 21 August 2013 at 3:59pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I think there is a huge difference between the American and European perspective here. Europe, with all the smaller countries and therefore more languages just one or two hours of flight away, is like a shop filled with candies and chocolatete. Even A1 can have huge payoffs here so why not get several. A1 can already ensure your whole stay is in the language (unless something unexpected happens), the natives are excited and friendly (ok, this depends on the country) and you can get by even when the native in the shop or somewhere like that doesn't speak any English (many don't). So getting good at four or five languages, no matter how slower, is sometimes much more appealing than working my way high in one of them and being an analphabet in others.
And another European particularity: there are three main language families so you often get a serious discount for your second, third, fourth and so on language. This is something hardly imaginable when it comes to Asia or Africa. Had I been born in the US, my point of view would have surely been different. I would have gotten the most important language of today's world for free and I would have a whole Spanish continent (no offence meant, Brasil and French Guyane) at hand. Or it would be that awesome to dive in the Quebec French like emk does. But I live on a continent where English is the national language in just three countries and the rest either learns it as an important foreign language to various levels or they don't. 16 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| nonneb Pentaglot Groupie SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4560 days ago 80 posts - 173 votes Speaks: English*, Ancient Greek, Latin, German, Spanish Studies: Mandarin, Hungarian, French | Message 28 of 142 21 August 2013 at 4:04pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I think the music analogy is a good one, but I might disagree with the lesson taken from it earlier in the thread. If someone with no musical experience tells me they're learning five instruments, I'm skeptical. If someone who already knows a couple of instruments and actively uses music in their life tells me they're learning five instruments, that sounds reasonable, if a bit odd, to me. I know plenty of people who can play 5+ instruments well enough to get paid to perform at events (small, local events, but still, lots of musicians around my home). After I knew how to play the piano and trumpet, I learned the baritone horn, trombone, guitar, and saxophone all at more or less the same time. I spent about almost all my free time with music on one instrument or another during my adolescence, and even though music is more of a weekend hobby for me now, I can still play the instruments I learned as a teenager well enough.
My opinion on languages is the same. Someone who can't speak more than a few phrases in a foreign language studying five is probably not worth much, but if you've done it before and you know what it involves, I see no reason why not. It's even less odd if they are related languages (brass instruments, for example, to tie it back in to music). And goals make a difference, too. I never aimed to be Yngwie Malmsteen in any of the instruments, nor do I aim to be a great poet or author in my TLs. If you wants to be a world-class violinist, practice violin for eight hours a day. If you want to be a good violinist, you can get by with a lot less. All that to say, if you want to get really good at a language, study that language. If you want to get good at multiple languages (possibly a bit slower), study multiple languages. Though I would definitely say that learning your first language, you should focus on one first. Other people have already made the same point as me earlier in the thread, but I felt like taking the music analogy a little further because my language learning hobby has more or less replaced music in my life, and I see a lot of similarities. Also I doubt it's a coincidence that a majority of the people I know in real life who speak multiple languages are also musicians (using the term loosely. I just don't want to use the phrase "musical talent" because I think talent's just one small part of it). 11 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Stelle Bilingual Triglot Senior Member Canada tobefluent.com Joined 3953 days ago 949 posts - 1686 votes Speaks: French*, English*, Spanish Studies: Tagalog | Message 29 of 142 21 August 2013 at 4:12pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I'm focusing on one language right now. My goal is to be functionally trilingual (French and English - native level;
Spanish - C1). I have a long list of languages that I would *like* to learn, and my current goal is to start studying Tagalog next summer. Once I have a decent grasp of Tagalog, I'll start learning Mandarin. But I think that will be it for me. I can dedicate about two hours to language study every day. I don't see how I could maintain 3 foreign languages at a high level, keep reading and learning in my native languages AND keep learning new languages (aside from a few months here and there of intensive study for basic survival travel skills). I have to admit that I'm both impressed and skeptical when people list that they can speak 10+ languages. What, exactly, does it mean to "speak" 10+ languages? I teach intensive full-time French immersion classes to groups of 3-4 students on a military base: 6 hours per day + homework for 10 whole months. If a student doesn't reach fluency, they get another month of intensive targeted practice so that they can retest. At the end of those 10-11 months, my students can speak French. They can work and socialize in French, understand books and media, and carry on conversations with well-educated native speakers. Maybe I'm biased because of my professional experience, but that's my bar for speaking: can you live in a language? Since my expectations are so high, I can't imagine ever being able to say that I speak multiple languages - it's just too much *work* to get there. Edited by Stelle on 21 August 2013 at 4:13pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6512 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 30 of 142 21 August 2013 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I dont't think that JC_Identity and I are misunderstanding each other (on page 3). I just had to point out that the most extreme one-language managers are those who remain monolingual or at best bilingual (in case they can't avoid learning English or another supranational language). And the more you support the idea of focussing on one language at a time the longer it will take you to reach a level where you can consider taking on another language.
As emk points out you can decide that you prefer a minor progress in a 'strong' language to a large jump ahead in a less important language. But why would you take that decision? Well, surely because you have some purpose with the language, like speaking to your wife or reading great classic literature. And I can certainly see how you can have strong incentives to get a couple of really good languages on your score board. But it can only be personal pride that dictates that you should either be a fluent speaker of ALL your languages (including those you rarely speak) - or totally avoid them. Being a comfortable speaker should be enough - especially if it can be attained by a relatively modest effort, compared to the herculean task of becoming a nearnative speaker of those languages. My personal pride goes in another direction: being able to read a lot of languages fluently (like C1 or C2) and being able to speak them at a level where they can be used for practical purposes in case a suitable case should arise (say B1 or B2). And I would never attain that goal if I only could study one language below B1 or B2 or if I couldn't spend my study time on the languages where it had the most visible effect. I agree with Cavesa that our linguistic situation here in Europe makes polyglotism a quite relevant goal. I can get cheap flights to countries where at least a dozen languages are spoken altogether. So deciding to learn those is not totally idiotic. And why should I then choose to learn only a few of them when I can - with time and patience and realistic expectations - get them all? Edited by Iversen on 21 August 2013 at 4:54pm 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4516 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 31 of 142 21 August 2013 at 4:42pm | IP Logged | ||
If you say you speak, you can be held responsible for this statement. Not saying it means you can duck your responsibility and get out of a pickle. It also opens you up to (unwarranted/unnecessary, usually) criticism by native speakers who somehow think you're not worthy of their language and you must produce every sentence correctly without fail, which even among natives is a rare occurrence :) The languages I mention in speaks are those I have used, or am potentially able to use, in a social situation without need for recourse to English. This doesn't mean I speak them perfectly, but I can use them with my friends for example. That is good enough for me. Edited by tarvos on 21 August 2013 at 4:43pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 4818 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian | Message 32 of 142 21 August 2013 at 5:34pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I don't think schools imposing more than one languages are wrong (it was me who mentioned the schools). Children should be taught two foreign languages at least when their native one is useless abroad, such as Czech. And unless they are mentally handicaped, they should ideally be pushed to get at the very least A2 in the worse and B1 in the better one at the end of high school. It is really not that much to ask, especially in comparison with knowledge in some other subjects that is being demanded. Letting someone graduate highschool unable to construct a basic sentence in a language they had been studying for several years is like letting them leave without knowing fractions. But for this you would need different conditions in most schools. And by giving them exposure to two languages, you are doubling the chances they will get to like or find useful at least one, learn it better, and use it in their jobs. (which is the basic purpose why governments fund languages at schools. not making citizens' holidays more enjoyable)
Why are people afraid to move languages to "speaks"? Most want to be sure they are good enough and content enough with their skills. And there are various levels of perfectionism or limited opportunities to test yourself in real situation in game. I think when someone says they feel the need to change the language after an hour or two hours or whatever, they really need to change the language. Not the methods. The impressions from a new language can be very intensive and tiring. And some people just find it helpful to switch. I do it at times as well as I find German in particular exhausting. And "enjoying the content" won't help because there is very little content I can enjoy now. 3 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. |
