quote:Originally posted by guinevererobin: People need to be able to communicate with each other, with governmental departments, etc, and having one official language simplifies that process.
This is the part I don't understand. Suppose I waved my magic wand right now, and English officially became the language of the land.
What would change?
Would the immigrants who have been trying to pick up the language as best they can magically now read, write, and speak it fluently? Or would the government simply make it more difficult for them than it already is?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, unless you start very young, you'll never speak a second language without an "accent" because you just don't know the phonemes of the other language.
I agree with the sentiment that language learning past childhood is challenging, but I have to categorically disagree with this statement. Hard doesn't mean impossible.
--
And I agree with the posters who wonder what codifying English as the "national language" would accomplish - it is already the common language. No, not everybody speaks it, but typically, if you want to talk to someone (outside your own community), you will need to do it in English, even if it's bad English.
I think that immigrants should be encouraged (and provided with more resources) to learn English not because it's The Law but because it is in their best interest - better job, education, access to public services, etc. Providing those resources is, in fact, in the English-speaking community's best interest as well.
I don't see the push to make English the national language as a move in that direction, however. My feeling is that it more plays into the xenophobic fears of the segment of the population feeling threatened by immigration and afraid of losing its majority status. Which I take strong exception to.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Would the immigrants who have been trying to pick up the language as best they can magically now read, write, and speak it fluently? Or would the government simply make it more difficult for them than it already is?
If history is any indication, it would only have negative effects.
A few months ago, the official Utah web site took down some helpful Spanish web sites because it was feared that even having such web sites was illegal because of the official English language laws in Utah.
quote:Originally posted by Lissande:
quote:And, unless you start very young, you'll never speak a second language without an "accent" because you just don't know the phonemes of the other language.
I agree with the sentiment that language learning past childhood is challenging, but I have to categorically disagree with this statement. Hard doesn't mean impossible.
You're talking about two different things. Somebody can be quite adept, fluent even, in a language, and still have a strong accent.
I agree that learning to speak a new language without an accent is practically impossible for many adults. I also believe that I am one of them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by guinevererobin: People need to be able to communicate with each other, with governmental departments, etc, and having one official language simplifies that process.
This is the part I don't understand. Suppose I waved my magic wand right now, and English officially became the language of the land.
What would change?
Would the immigrants who have been trying to pick up the language as best they can magically now read, write, and speak it fluently? Or would the government simply make it more difficult for them than it already is?
Well, it is to be hoped that with a law actually stating it, people would see that the country is serious. It is also to be hoped that the government would then take further steps to help the populace pick up this tedious language. Making English the official langauge does not mean remove all helps written in another language.
Look, I say this very matter of factly, it is an advantage to be able to speak English. Tons of doors open if you can speak it. For Europeans to do commerce, their children often learn two languages in school, they just have to. In China there are mandatory English classes, and that's a foreign language! They don't learn it because there are a millions of English speaking immigrants in the country, they learn it because that's the language of business worldwide.
I know how hard it is to learn a second language. If people moving here or being born here are having trouble learning it, I don't think the answer is to slacken our demands that they learn English but to revise our programs designed to integrate immigrants and their children.
edit: Oh and Rivka, can I just say I love the way you speak English? It's fun to listen to.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
English is already the national language. Which is awesome.
Making it official is the thing that I think is a Bad Idea. I wrote a paper junior year of high school about the arrogance of America, which, I claimed, was typified by our stubborn expectation that everyone speak our language.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Again, not so in Canada, so I can't see why that should happen in the States.
If the U.S. were going to emulate our language laws, English and Spanish would both be official languages. The Canadian example doesn't apply to mandating a single official language in America.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lissande:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, unless you start very young, you'll never speak a second language without an "accent" because you just don't know the phonemes of the other language. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the sentiment that language learning past childhood is challenging, but I have to categorically disagree with this statement. Hard doesn't mean impossible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're talking about two different things. Somebody can be quite adept, fluent even, in a language, and still have a strong accent.
I agree that learning to speak a new language without an accent is practically impossible for many adults. I also believe that I am one of them.
You are quite right, some people are adept or fluent in a language that they still speak with a foreign accent. Does this mean that ALL people who are adept or fluent in a language speak with a foreign accent? It is that assumption I disagree with - SOME people, and I believe my husband and I are among them*, ARE capable of learning a language as adults and speaking without a discernible accent. It isn't impossible.
* He started learning English in his late teens (16-17? nearly 15 years ago) and now passes for Oklahoman. I started learning Czech at 23 and though I haven't reached the goal quite yet, after four years and two months people often don't realize I am a foreigner until I tell them. If you deal strictly with accent, as you mention, not grammar slips or odd phrasing (for example reading from a text, reciting a poem, singing, etc.), I am essentially indistinguishable from a native speaker. I expect this will only improve with time.
So, basically, the fact that SOME people can't do it, in the same way that I can't dance, doesn't mean that NO ONE can. Know what I mean?
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: English is already the national language. Which is awesome.
Making it official is the thing that I think is a Bad Idea. I wrote a paper junior year of high school about the arrogance of America, which, I claimed, was typified by our stubborn expectation that everyone speak our language.
A few thousand years ago China was faced with this same dillema. Now it probably was not a good idea that Emperor Qin Shi brutally conquered all the provinces, but unifying the written system is the only reason China is the country it is today. In the late 1800s - early 1900s the modern Chinese government decided to make Mandarin the official language of the country. People still learn their local dialects, and there are hundreds in addition to the major provincial dialects, but they ALL learn Mandarin in school. Provincial government offices are staffed by natives so they can speak both languages, but the population by and large can all speak Mandarin. If they did not have that the country would be chaotic.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you deal strictly with accent, as you mention, not grammar slips or odd phrasing (for example reading from a text, reciting a poem, singing, etc.), I am essentially indistinguishable from a native speaker. I expect this will only improve with time.
I was the complete opposite -- I had much better grammar (enough to be told that I was fluent), but my accent was awful. If I had lived there for 20 years, I expect that my accent still would have been bad.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Making English the official langauge does not mean remove all helps written in another language.
It has in the past.
In the past looking after minority groups meant enslaving them and keeping them ignorant so that they would not destroy themselves with the misapplication of education.
Doesn't mean that application is the only definition of the concept, "Taking care of minority groups."
Incidentally my Chinese has a strong Taiwanese accent, and attempting to implement a proper Beijing accent would take me actually living there before it would come naturally. I have to try and fake it even if I want to be partially successful at it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, let it be clear, I'm not saying my grammar is bad. My grammar is very GOOD, enough so that when I slip up (either say something I know is wrong because I've built up too much momentum to stop, or creatively talk my way around a concept I don't know the specific phrasing for) it can catch people off guard. It's just that my way of phrasing something will give me away on average more often than my way of pronouncing or inflecting it. It's 'cause language has so many dang words...
I have known people like you describe, with good communication skills in general but horrendous accents. It's bad when I can hear the Louisiana accent in a language I don't even speak. I don't quite grok it, but I know it exists.
quote: Making English the official langauge does not mean remove all helps written in another language.
It has in the past.
In the past looking after minority groups meant enslaving them and keeping them ignorant so that they would not destroy themselves with the misapplication of education.
Doesn't mean that application is the only definition of the concept, "Taking care of minority groups."
I have seen nothing to indicate that if English were made an official language of the U.S. that things would be any different.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...everybody speaks English, and you can go to a grocery store and order your damn bread in English! It solved everything!
Unless you want to buy Cuban bread, in which case you have to resort to simply pointing.
I don't think everybody realizes the humor in that statement. There have been days when I've gone from morning 'til bedtime without speaking a word of English around here.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with the sentiment that language learning past childhood is challenging, but I have to categorically disagree with this statement. Hard doesn't mean impossible.
And that would be why I clarified that people who could do it were rare - certainly that it isn't impossible but it's also much more difficult than Tatiana's "It's not that hard!" comment flippantly indicated.
It's not a matter of intelligence or of effort, but rather what sounds you can discriminate. Spanish has five vowel sounds I believe, while English has more than twice as many. It's very difficult for native Spanish speakers to differentiate between certain English vowel sounds. That can be overcome, yes, but it takes years of work unless one just has a naturally gifted ear. And the same goes for English speakers trying to learn Spanish, or any other type of second language acquisition. In every case it's not a matter of just learning a new vocabulary but a new set of phonemes and that's very, very hard for most people after a certain age. And beyond the phonemes and vocabulary it's also learning new morphology and syntax. Unfortunately, we don't teach linguistics really except at the University level so most Americans don't have a good grasp on how their OWN language works, much less a different one.
I love studying linguistics and the structure of the language and because of that considered getting certified in ESL instruction. I abandoned the idea purely because my ear is SO BAD. I have a hard time discriminating among sounds in my own native language, and I know I would not be good at the phonemic awareness part of the job that is so essential to good ESL instruction.
My linguistics professor swore it's a skill I could develop, but I still believe I would have struggled there. *shrug*
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by guinevererobin: People need to be able to communicate with each other, with governmental departments, etc, and having one official language simplifies that process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the part I don't understand. Suppose I waved my magic wand right now, and English officially became the language of the land.
What would change?
Nothing, in particular. As I also stated in my post, I would be in favor of officially making English the national language, AND offering immigrants assistance in learning that language.
However, the "what would it change?" argument goes against you as well. What it would change, since English is still required to communicate and function in society anyway? It would simply clarify that yes, if you come to this country, you need to learn English.
Which is common sense. But increasingly, nowdays, we seem to need to codify common sense. Obviously, immigrants are going to try and learn English. I understand your concern that in some cases, a national language might be used as an excuse to reduce educational opportunities for immigrants, but it doesn't logically follow from the premise of a national language.
quote:If the U.S. were going to emulate our language laws, English and Spanish would both be official languages. The Canadian example doesn't apply to mandating a single official language in America.
Why Spanish? This goes back to my earlier complaint about conveniancing some immigrants while leaving others disadvantaged, rather then leveling the playing field (as ESL and literacy tutoring for all would do).
About half of the population of legal immigrants in 2003 came from just ten countries, and Mexico was first on that list with 116,000 immigrants, with India second at 50,000, the Philipines at 45,000 and China with 41,000, etc etc... how do immigrants from India, the Philipines, and China benefit from not having English be the official language? (from migrationpolicy.org)
If English WERE the national language, then certainly each state could adapt to their particular population, since some will have higher concentrations of immigrants from particular areas, and could have translators available for them to assist them. That seems like a states right issue.
BTW, in terms of the two official languages in Canada... I have to say that when I visited Quebec, I didn't think I'd need to know any French (even though I usually study up on the language of any country I'm visiting), and I found myself miming all weekend long. Posts: 57 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like rooting out obesity by removing all support structures from our society for people who are too fat.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy: Maybe not, but when the minority is becoming as large as the hispanic population is, those laws need to be put into place. I am not at all for taking down government websites that are in Spanish, or officers of the law who work in hispanic neighborhoods learning Spanish. What I am afraid of, is that we will not stave off the veritable tower of babel complex which will likely develop if integration is not strongly pushed.
Schools should all be teaching in English; no ebonics, no spanish, etc. If the school wants to conduct business in another language because it is more effective, make English classes required in the curriculum; with graduation stopped if the class is failed.
MPH: That's hardly a valid comparison, obesity is not a culture that in of itself has value.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What evidence do you have that the Hispanic population in the US is resisting integration or will start to resist integration if it continues to grow?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Again, not so in Canada, so I can't see why that should happen in the States.
If the U.S. were going to emulate our language laws, English and Spanish would both be official languages. The Canadian example doesn't apply to mandating a single official language in America.
That's a good point, but for all intents and purposes French is the official language in one province (Quebec) and English is for the rest of the country. And considering that as of 2006 Quebec "forms a nation within a united Canada" (whatever that means, I assure you I have no idea), it's not too hard to imagine there being only one official language. Pretty much all of our French speakers are localized in one place. ESL/ELL programs are still well funded (to my knowledge) and seen as very important for people who speak neither official language. Anyway, is having two official languages out of the question in the States?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What evidence do you have that the Hispanic population in the US is resisting integration or will start to resist integration if it continues to grow?
What kind of evidence would you find admissable? I could certainly produce groups whose sole purpose is to create isolated communities where the schools, local governments, etc are all run in Spanish. Or groups that want Spanish taught in all public schools, like French in Canada.
Or are you only accepting evidence that indicts the latino culture entire?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want evidence for this "veritable tower of babel complex which will likely develop if integration is not strongly pushed." You made a claim; I asked for evidence. That's all.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:MPH: That's hardly a valid comparison, obesity is not a culture that in of itself has value.
And how does that invalidate my comparison?
Yes, I know that the two situations aren't exactly the same in every detail. If they were, they'd be the same situation.
But how does that difference matter in this context? How does the value of the culture change the effects of making English the official language of the US?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) Strengthening the unity of the US by mandating that English be the official language?
2) Insuring that we don't create a slave class of non-English speakers.
3) When I am driving in an area with many Spanish Only speakers, the guy driving that delivery truck full of Gas knows that the Stop Sign says Stop. It seems its easier to put Spanish for Stop on the sign next to English for Stop, than it would be to insure the driver could read the English.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I want evidence for this "veritable tower of babel complex which will likely develop if integration is not strongly pushed." You made a claim; I asked for evidence. That's all.
Read the paragraphs with heading, "A New Spoils System." Though the author thinks that our "trashy pop culture" will ensure English dominance in America, he does mention that those from the poorer classes tend to not integrate well in American society. Higher employment opportunities are still abysmally low for Hispanic workers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Race ^^ Scroll down to "Race."
I want to believe that bilingualism is increasing in the US. But that can only be so if English is a mandatory class in schools. I can accept that immigrants in their 20s or older might not be able to learn English no matter how hard they try. They need to live in communities where they can make it by speaking Spanish. But their children HAVE to learn English, that way the percentages of bilingualism will increase to mutually beneficial levels.
If economic/educational levels remain low, then Hispanic immigrants will form tight knit communities that will increase in size but remain almost impervious to integration. These eventually turn into cities and even provinces that hold their distinctness in the highest regard. Again by having the children of immigrants learn English, and learn it well they increase their economic opportunities and this discourages Retro-Acculturation.
I mean I already cited China. Look what they had to go through to become a nation of bilingual citizens. Even today there are villages where they have a local dialect that is COMPLETELY different then the local dialect of the village just over the mountain. Had the Chinese government not put it's foot down and forced Mandarin (just one of the dialects, but the language of Kings) in schools, China would be severely handicapped in today's world economy. As it was, it only became the most powerful empire in the world because Qin Shi Huang Di imposed a uniform system of writing on the entire country. That way people who could not speak to each other could still write to each other.
While Hong Kong was a British Colony there was not a strong effort to assimilate or amalgamate the population. To this day the Hongkies who speak English speak it fluently at best and passingly at worst. Almost without exception the ones who are decent to amazing all had English in their curriculum at school. The ones who had the option to learn English but could graduate from school without it almost always go through life without the ability to communicate with English speakers.
Hispanic people are not going to just learn English if there is not one of two things.
1: Clear and frequent economic opportunities for those who learn English.
2: Mandatory requirements of English fluency in the educational sector.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe not, but when the minority is becoming as large as the hispanic population is, those laws need to be put into place.
Why? If there is such a large fraction who speak Spanish, maybe there should be laws passed forcing all English speakers to learn Spanish?
And if you say "We were here first," I'm going to ask how those Iroquois lessons are going.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh and Rivka, can I just say I love the way you speak English? It's fun to listen to.
O_o Are you referring to my Yiddishisms, or . . . ?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think BB is saying that with such a large minority, it makes it easier for them to live in enclaves where there's no real impetus for them to ever learn English. Their kids would likely learn it from schools, but the parents could go to work and grocery stores etc in the enclave and never have to speak a word of English. The problem with that doesn't become apparent until there's a run in with law enforcement officials who aren't bilingual or there's a medical emergency.
Ethnic groups, at least around here, and I think in a lot of cities, just like in the early 1900's organize themselves in insular enclaves. It's why Detroit has a Mexicantown, Greektown, and as Lisa once colorfully put it, Dearbornistan (which doesn't work anyway, because they are Iraqi Christians or Kurds by and large, Chaldeans, not Persian, where the -stan suffix comes from).
Anywho, at least half the people at the restaurant I work at are bilingual. Most of the kitchen staff is Spanish speaking originally, and most of them also speak English. And there are a lot of Chaldeans too who speak a myriad of different languages, like Assyrian or Arabic. They all speak those other languages at home, but all speak English at work.
I think the argument for making everyone speak English but not having everyone else speak Spanish is that the Spanish speakers are still the vast minority, especially if you count just the ones who don't speak English, and forcing 300 million people to learn Spanish would be prohibitively expensive. The idea would be to create a common language for efficiency and safety's sake, and since the grand majority already speak English, it just makes the most sense to have everyone learn it.
I would think making English the national language would mean that it would ensure money be made available so everyone could learn it, but it seems experience flies in the face of that logic.
I should also add, that I think starting in elementary school, kids should have to learn a second language. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same language, in fact I think we should have different schools all learn different languages all over the place, and they should have to learn it all through high school. It would be economically advantageous, and I think you could make a great argument for national security too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think BB is saying that with such a large minority, it makes it easier for them to live in enclaves where there's no real impetus for them to ever learn English. Their kids would likely learn it from schools, but the parents could go to work and grocery stores etc in the enclave and never have to speak a word of English. The problem with that doesn't become apparent until there's a run in with law enforcement officials who aren't bilingual or there's a medical emergency.
Absolutely true.
And I ask again: How will making English the official language help? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree with you there, making a law that says "English is the national language" does nothing by itself. You could probably even just brush it off and say the entire measure is merely symbolic. But as people in this thread have said, the practical application of this type of law has actually made it harder for foreign speaking people to adapt to US culture and to learn English.
Making English the national language does nothing, unless the second part of that act is: "And funding will be provided to help all non-English speaking citizens and residents learn English and adapt into American society as productive and individual beings without losing their cultural heritage."
Without the second part, firmly mandated, the first part is either useless or destructive, but it's anything but helpful.
I'm trying to think of an acronym that'd fit into either the BABEL Act or the ROSETTA Act. Something about the Bilingual Accountability and something English Language Act, but I can't make the first part work.
Making it the official language would be a peace offering to Republicans who are probably out to just score points with a xenophobic far right base. The second part is the meat, and I think with some haggling, Democrats could get Republicans to go for it without alienating their own base.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Making English the national language does nothing, unless the second part of that act is: "And funding will be provided to help all non-English speaking citizens and residents learn English and adapt into American society as productive and individual beings without losing their cultural heritage."
Personally, I'd strongly prefer the latter without the former.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As would I. Especially since the finale of the latter would make the former happen naturally as a result.
But I suspect that getting the latter without the former would be a near political impossibility with the current make up of the Congress and Oval Office. It might be necessary to get Republicans to go along with funding the measure, and I think it's something we could live with. Like we've all said, it doesn't really do anything does is? And the real meat would be the second part anyway.
A nice third part would be an anti-exclusion clause saying something like "Making English the national language will in no way illegalize or hinder efforts to communicate bilingually with American citizens and residents." In other words, just because English is the national language doesn't mean we immediately stop all outreach programs to help non-English speakers get by in our English words.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that would be why I clarified that people who could do it were rare - certainly that it isn't impossible but it's also much more difficult than Tatiana's "It's not that hard!" comment flippantly indicated.
Sorry, Belle - I did see that clarification, but I still felt it was an exaggeration. Basically I guess I think Tatiana is underestimating the difficulty while you (and others with similar views) overestimate it. But point taken. Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
a lot of my university teachers spoke english with a perfect accent. I doubt they were immersed as children. It's not impossible but for me it would be just too much effort and I'm not bothered enough.
I agree about the phrasing, Lissande. It's not that it's incorrect, but sometimes you just use the words the way no native speaker would. (Generic you of course, I never heard you speak Czech )
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly - it's not just knowing the words, but how to combine the words in the one way out of twenty possibilities that people actually use. It's that that makes people think I'm Czech but grew up abroad and maybe returned as an adult.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that it's a snap to learn to read Don Quixote in the original. What I mean is that there are probably two dozen phrases that would give us the ability to interact on an everyday level. I don't think everyone needs to be able to argue the epistemology of logic in two languages, but you can learn to say how are you, how much is this, can I help you, where is the restroom, what is your name, pleased to meet you, would you like a soda, thank you, I'd like a cheeseburger without peanut butter, no thanks, ice cream makes me pregnant, and other common phrases. That you can learn in about an hour. Then the more you know the easier it is to learn more. That's what I meant when I said it's not that hard. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe not, but when the minority is becoming as large as the hispanic population is, those laws need to be put into place.
Why? If there is such a large fraction who speak Spanish, maybe there should be laws passed forcing all English speakers to learn Spanish?
And if you say "We were here first," I'm going to ask how those Iroquois lessons are going.
Lyrhawn more or less understood what I am afraid Hispanic communities will do. There are far fewer strictly Spanish speaking individuals in the country right now, and so it makes more sense to have them all learn English right now. If nothing is done in about 50-100 years and reproductive trends are taken into account, I would argue that everyone needs to start learning Spanish in schools.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh and Rivka, can I just say I love the way you speak English? It's fun to listen to.
quote:O_o Are you referring to my Yiddishisms, or . . . ?
I actually don't recall hearing you say any Yiddishisms, but I like the accent you put on words. My own accent is pretty bland.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: ... ESL/ELL programs are still well funded (to my knowledge) and seen as very important for people who speak neither official language.
As an aside, I actually went through those programs in Ontario. I would say that they are actually more effective than regular English classes. That said, I still despise having mandatory French lessons *shakes fist*
From an early age, I just never saw the point in learning such an irrelevant language especially when my skill at learning languages is pretty low. I would have been better served by learning Mandarin or even reinforcing my Cantonese.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I'm not saying that it's a snap to learn to read Don Quixote in the original. What I mean is that there are probably two dozen phrases that would give us the ability to interact on an everyday level. I don't think everyone needs to be able to argue the epistemology of logic in two languages, but you can learn to say how are you, how much is this, can I help you, where is the restroom, what is your name, pleased to meet you, would you like a soda, thank you, I'd like a cheeseburger without peanut butter, no thanks, ice cream makes me pregnant, and other common phrases. That you can learn in about an hour. Then the more you know the easier it is to learn more. That's what I meant when I said it's not that hard.
The trouble with that is that then you have to be able to understand the answers. Example: I took Russian in high school. I can say, "Where is the restroom." It's a fairly simple phrase. However, if the answer is anything more than a finger pointing at a door, I am no better off for having asked.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know how to say "I live at the hotel" in Scottish Gaelic and "David's car is in the river" in Welsh. Not exactly the most useful phrases.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amilia, when you know those two dozen phrases, you can learn more as you go. For instance, the first time in Guatemala I ordered a cheeseburger without mayonnaise, I said "pero, no mayonaise" and the waitress corrected me to "sin mayonaise". After that whenever I wanted food without something, I knew to say "sin". The thing is, you have to know enough to begin. Once you are willing to use the other language at all, you pick up more with almost every conversation.
In a paper mill in Texas I asked a worker where was the Coke machine, and he said "no comprendo" thinking that was the end of it. Then I thought about it and came up with "donde esta la maquina del Coca Cola" (probably very silly sounding, but got the idea across -- oh and "Coca Cola" and "okay" are understandable in every language). He was like "lalalalalala abajo lalalala la otra planta lalalala" with hand motions. It's like that far side cartoon of what we say and what dogs hear. I picked up just a few words, but I knew he said something about down or underneath or something and the other plant. So I went downstairs and across to the other building and sure enough, there it was! It's SO MUCH FUN when you actually communicate! It's a great thrill.
Anyway, you don't have to understand much at all. People are quite kind and willing to speak slowly and use baby talk for the sake of the ignorant gringa. From each successful interaction you will pick up one or two new words, and soon you'll be quite fluent. It's truly exciting and fun.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine when to, I can't remember where, some Caribbean Island where only like 2% of the population speaks English out in the rural areas where they were. Well she didn't know that, and they had to have people translate for them.
She said she thought it was funny that people other than Americans spoke very loudly and slowly like you're an idiot when they know you don't understand them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kama: a lot of my university teachers spoke english with a perfect accent. I doubt they were immersed as children. It's not impossible but for me it would be just too much effort and I'm not bothered enough.
I sincerely doubt that a native English speaker would think those professors spoke with a perfect accent. I've worked with University professors from all over the world and many of them from non-English speaking countries do speak excellent English but with out exception they have a non-native accent unless they lived in an English speaking country before they went through puberty.
There have been numerous studies of this and the actual brain physiology involved is well documented. As an infant, your brain begins to sort sounds into different categories. Sounds which have a meaningful difference within the language the baby regularly hears get mapped to different parts of the brain while sounds that are similar but whose difference isn't meaningful within the language all get mapped to the same area of the brain. This mapping remains plastic until adolesence. As you go through puberty, this mapping becomes permanant. As a result, nearly all people who learn a language after puberty will have some non-native accent.
I've know a number of immigrant families who had children of different ages when they came to the US. What you find is that those children who were prepubescent when they moved to the US, speak with a native accent. Those who were in their early teens have a slight accent. Those who were in their later teens or early twenties speak very clearly understandable English, but with a clearly identifiable accent. The parents who were over thirty when they immigrated typically have a very thick accent.
I'm sure that there are exceptions, there are to every phenomenon involving the human brain. But such exception are rare. For nearly all adults, learning to speak a language without an accent is physiologically impossible. Their brains have lost the ability to distinguish certain sounds.
For example. I speak fluent German. I've lived in both Austria and Germany. I've spent the last five summers working at a University in Germany. I've read both scientific and literary works in Germany, done some translation, and taught classes in German. Yet there are some sounds in German that I simply can not hear properly. For example german has a short 'a' as in the word "Stadt" and a long 'a' as in the word "Staat". The difference between the two is solely in the length of the vowel. The problem is that this difference is small and is within the normal variability of the sound in American English. I've tried again and again but I simply cannot hear any difference between the words unless people exagerate it far beyond what is done in normal spoken German. And if I can't hear them unless they are exagerated, I'm sure that I can't say them correctly either.
I had some Thai students. In Thai land there are five different musical tones that are important in the language. When I've heard them demonstrated in lessons for English speakers I can hear the differences because they are always exagerated. But when my Thai student would speak them, I could never hear any difference at all.
Of course there is a difference between being "fluent" and being able to speak with a native accent. Fluency is a matter of being able to understand clearly and be understood clearly and this is something which can be achieved by most adults if they are willing to put in the time and effort. Although the older you get, the harder that gets as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She said she thought it was funny that people other than Americans spoke very loudly and slowly like you're an idiot when they know you don't understand them.
Speaking slowly, exageratedly and in simple sentences is exactly what people should do if they are trying to communicate with some who speaks very little of the language. Shouting doesn't make much sense, but if you've ever been in a foreign country where you knew very little of the language then I think you'll agreee that it really helps if people speak very slowly and in very simple language with alot of hand gestures.
I've done alot of bike touring in countries where I speak almost none of the local language. When you bike tour you spend alot of time going through small towns where most people speak only the local language and it's been interesting trying to communicate. I've picked up a fair bit of French while touring in France even though I've never studied it. In Poland this summer, we were able to get by with a bit of German, a bit of Russian, a bit of English and alot of hand gestures and a few words from a dictionary. Its amazing how nice people are when you try to be courteous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I certainly agree with the speaking slowly part. I know enough French to where I could probably survive if I was dropped off in the French countryside, but I likely couldn't hold a conversation without a dictionary and a couple months of immersion.
But for the life of me I can't understand French people speaking at full speed. The words all blur together and I can barely pick out a couple words here and there, sometimes enough to gather the meaning, but when they slow way down I can usually understand or get the gist of what they are saying entirely.
The loudness part doesn't much help, but I'm sure we've all seen the stereotypical loud American speaking slowly as if loudness somehow makes you more understandable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My grammar is very GOOD, enough so that when I slip up (either say something I know is wrong because I've built up too much momentum to stop, or creatively talk my way around a concept I don't know the specific phrasing for) it can catch people off guard. It's just that my way of phrasing something will give me away on average more often than my way of pronouncing or inflecting it. It's 'cause language has so many dang words...![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I don't quite grok it, but I know it exists.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
