« Everything Good Is Bad For You | Main | Looking Back »
December 11, 2006
So Long As They Can Speak American
Without having much opinion on whether students American schools should reemphasize foreign language education, it seems pretty clear American students should stop learning so much French. Unless quite a few more folks than I think plan on doing development work in Africa, the absurd amount of French-language education going on in schools makes no sense. Indeed, the choices offered by most schools seem a century or so out of date. You generally get classes in Latin, French, and the type of Spanish spoken in Spain. All good things, but given that each language taught is another language not taught, why we're not throwing those resources into Chinese and a nearer dialect of Spanish baffles me.
December 11, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Well, given the Democrats plans for Iraq, maybe it is appropriate to teach French.
After all, French is the international language of surrender.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 11, 2006 9:04:52 AM
I speak pretty good conversational Spanish and find it very helpful where I live. That being said, I still expect immigrants to learn English. If I moved to a foreign country, I would expect to have to learn their language. I would not demand that everyone speak mine.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 11, 2006 9:07:28 AM
There's still an awful lot of French spoken in Africa.
Posted by: theophylact | Dec 11, 2006 9:36:11 AM
The same can be said for German. I took four years of German, and have used it exactly once in my life (in Italy, of all places). Nobody told me that something like 99% of Germans speak English, which makes the usefulness of German somewhat limited.
The problem, of course, is that we have a glut of French- and German-speaking teachers around, while teachers who can teach Arabic or Mandarin (which are far more important) are few and far between. Ramping up Spanish teaching won't be hard, fortunately--plenty of dual-language speakers around--but getting a significant number of teachers competent not just to get by in Mandarin but to actually teach it will take years, if not decades.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Dec 11, 2006 9:49:37 AM
There's also an awful lot of French spoken in France and parts of Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland which, despite recent rightwing silliness, are still popular tourist destinations. Most Americans who learn foreign languages will only use them as tourists.
Posted by: me2i81 | Dec 11, 2006 9:51:07 AM
I only learned Mexican Spanish in school. And I grew up in Wisconsin too, not a border state.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 11, 2006 10:02:51 AM
Frankly, it doesn't much matter what kind of Spanish you learn, it's like English and not like Arabic in its regional differences. If you speak any Spanish, you can be understood (although South Americans WILL smile when they hear you using "vosotros"), and you'll pick up the regional variations in time.
This is the challenge of running a nation which natively speaks the world's most common second language--what do you encourage people to learn as a second language? Everyone already know the most useful "generalist" language, so arguing for a second language means you're making a value choice, suggesting that certain parts of the world are more important than others and deserve to be specialized in. Why China and not Latin America? Why the Middle East and not the Russian Republics? Do we pick a language based on how many people in the world speak it, or on how many people immigrating to America speak it?
It's FRAUGHT.
And, of course, French teachers need jobs and we're unwilling to pay a premium for Chinese teachers, so why would they show up in our schools?
Posted by: anonymous | Dec 11, 2006 10:15:01 AM
Well, without voicing much opinion on which other languages students should be learning as well (my, aren't we feeling wishy-washy today!), let me support foreign language education for a reason that has nothing to do with globalization or whatever Time's cover story was: in my personal experience, studying any second language helped my understanding of the first, or languages in general. I think I had a better command of English in college than most of my classmates, and was better prepared to help kids in high school in some subbing jobs soon after college, (and, um, I'm a reporter now), and I think I owe a lot of that to being fluent in French, oddly enough. Anyone can learn a language the natural way, but by junior high, grammar and roots of words and esoteric, cerebral stuff like that just went in one ear and out the other for me. But I still needed at least a little of those things to write coherently, and to write well, more than just a little. That's a mark in favor of French, because it's one of the roots of modern English (as is German, and Latin, and even Arabic has given us a lot of vocabulary — we're sort of lucky that English is such a bastardized language). I wouldn't support studying French instead of some hypothetical useful language on the basis of this alone, but don't assume that tourism or social studies by proxy are the only values of language classes, either.
Also, those first two comments were hilarious. Your dedication to the message is admirable, guys.
Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 11, 2006 10:16:02 AM
As a gay man, let me tell you, I rue the day I decided to take Spanish and not French. ;) I've been playing catch-up ever since, especially since I'm a fashion person as well, and boy would it have been helpful to talk to the Chanel Haute Couture vendeuse in French.
As for Spanish, my first (Cuban) Spanish teacher was very good for explaining the differences between Castilian Spanish and Latin American Spanish; you only look snotty speaking Castilian in Latin America, from what I can tell, so it's not the worst thing. Unfortunately, the worst thing for me is that I look Hispanic, and I get a lot of people all the time trying to ask me questions in rapid fire Spanish, which I just can't do.
And I'm taking all of this tongue in cheek - because I think Ezra's essentially right, but for goodness sake, let's be glad someone is learning something about a language and culture outside of America, when so few people actually travel abroad (or even have a passport).
Posted by: weboy | Dec 11, 2006 10:28:53 AM
By the way Fred, the part about not demanding others speak English to you abroad is largely moot - almost everywhere I've traveled, their English is better than my attempt to struggle in their language (...which brings me back to French, because in France, it was the look of disappointment - or possibly disdain - that really got to me). :)
Sadly, I do agree to some extent with Fred - people who work in service roles in the American economy should really be speaking English. That said, I think it's just meanness to say we can't provide bilingual (or multilingual) forms, signs, documents etc... where they are needed. It think the message is "we'd encourage you to speak English, but we won't penalize you unnecessarily for being an adult in a new country without knowing English." Puts us a step ahead of the French, anyway. ;)
Posted by: weboy | Dec 11, 2006 10:36:23 AM
This is the challenge of running a nation which natively speaks the world's most common second language--what do you encourage people to learn as a second language? Everyone already know the most useful "generalist" language, so arguing for a second language means you're making a value choice, suggesting that certain parts of the world are more important than others and deserve to be specialized in. Why China and not Latin America? Why the Middle East and not the Russian Republics? Do we pick a language based on how many people in the world speak it, or on how many people immigrating to America speak it?
Quoted for emphasis. This is a really good point. Also, keep in mind that what's considered a useful or important language changes significantly over time. When I was in school, Russian and Japanese were considered the "important" languages that not enough people were learning. Today it is Chinese and Arabic. 15 years from now, it might be something completely different. We do a lousy job predicting the future, so picking a second language based on whether it will be useful when you grow up is a risky game.
Learning any second language is better than learning no second language. My international classmates shame me with the fact that they're non-native English speakers studying at the graduate level in their second, or third, or even 4th language.
Posted by: fiat lux | Dec 11, 2006 10:45:32 AM
Ezra, since fluency in a foreign language learned in school is primarily a middle to upper-middle class endeavor, it is quite likely that those students are going to be spending more time travelling to French-speaking locations in Europe than they will travelling to Mexico. In a related phenomenon, part of the focus on French is because the language is presumed to have much more social cachet than Spanish.
I, myself, learned Spanish in high school and Mandarin in college. My travels have found me more often in French-speaking countries or meeting foreigners during my travels whose second language was French rather than English or Spanish. I can definitely say that I've had plenty more encounters in which I wish I knew French than I have where Spanish was a necessity.
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 11, 2006 10:50:36 AM
Correction: I meant to say that among foreigners I've met in my travels who did not speak English as a second language, it was more likely that they spoke Franch, rather than Spanish.
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 11, 2006 11:08:49 AM
Look, dude. You think I wanted to take 6 years of French in junior high & high school? Growing up in NYC? Where *everyone* speaks Spanish? No, I was assigned. Nothing I could do.
Posted by: Spencer | Dec 11, 2006 11:24:53 AM
The right thing to do would be to combine Headstart/day care resources with language education. Hire a million Chinese and a half million Latin Americans to come to America for a year or two, to do child care, and teach the young 'uns. That's the age at which God intended kids to learn languages, not high school when it is hopeless.
Actually learning French would at least be charming, but the reality is that millions of Americans study French for years and learn nothing. We need to pay heed to biology on this, and put resources where they will do some good.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Dec 11, 2006 11:57:33 AM
Adding on what Cyrus said, I essentially learned all the technicalities of English grammar in my French grammar class. (Sometimes that shows.)
Spanish is generally a much more practical language to know, but for those going into the humanities French and German are very important languages.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 11, 2006 12:27:55 PM
If the reason to learn a foreign language is to increase the number of hotties you can talk to (and that's as good a reason as any), then it still makes more sense for U.S. students to learn French or Spanish. Quebec and Mexico are right next door, and much closer than China or the Middle East.
Posted by: Todd | Dec 11, 2006 1:04:13 PM
Ezra
Colleges language departments have been ramping up the number of hires in Arabic and Spanish departments the last few years, and student interest in those two have skyrocketed. Mandarin Chinese is already very popular at the college level, and from direct experience I can tell you that all three are starting to make an impact at high school levels, too.
Ultimately, the reason it's taking a while is exactly what Jeff Fecke states -- finding qualified teachers will take a while, years if not a generation or more. Meantime, there's still plenty of French and German teachers around (though much, much less than were around in, say, the mid-70s). It takes a while for institutions to catch up to demand.
Posted by: KL | Dec 11, 2006 1:29:45 PM
What about learning another language for the love of its sound and attendant culture? I learned English as a baby and Spanish as a child because, in both cases, I had to and I just did. But as a grownup I'm busy working on Italian and French; the sound of them gets to me, and I love almost everything about both cultures.
Perhaps we ought to do as the multi-lingual Netherlands residents, secure in the knowledge that they and only they speak Dutch, are doing: all children learn English (as a matter of practicality) in school and for their third language are offered the choice of French or German to study.
In our case, everyone would be required to study Spanish (again, as a matter of practicality) from day one, and choose a third language based on what teachers and resources are available in their schools' districts.
Posted by: litbrit | Dec 11, 2006 1:35:57 PM
I don't know why anyone wastes time learning a foreign language when they can be learning something useful like plumbing or welding. But I can tell you from my experiences talking to strippers in Montreal, knowing a little French can come in handy.
Posted by: Barringer | Dec 11, 2006 1:59:27 PM
It's kind of hard to predict what second languages will come in handy, but I second what others have said about the inherent value of foreign language study. I took five years of Latin of all things, and while I'm never going to "need" it, it has, I think, had a significant positive impact on my writing skills in English. It lets you think about language and syntax more freely because you're no longer tied to what you're used to hearing in conversational speech. Starting Latin in 7th grade, for example, made reading Shakespeare in high school easier, because I could deal with things like verbs after direct objects and other fuhky syntax that otherwise I would have had to think about more. (Still a slave to the footnotes for vocabulary, though. Especially in the comedies...)
Posted by: Isabel | Dec 11, 2006 3:38:07 PM
Obviously, one of the reasons for teaching European langauges is that they are a lot easier for native speakers of English to learn than Mandarin, Japanese and Arabic, certainly using formal methods in high school (though I dig Bruce Wilder's idea of using foreign nannies - I have friends who can speak beginners' Tagalog and Zulu thanks to their nannies).
Why French beats Spanish is more of a mystery - the pronunciation and basic grammar of French is probably a bit easier, so it probably comes down to the inertia noted by Jeff Fecke and others. Also, I totally second Isabel's point about learning Latin- the sheer deadness (and beauty) of Latin make it a magnificent tool for learning about linguistic structures
Posted by: JohnTh | Dec 11, 2006 3:49:55 PM
Others have touched on the importance of learning languages young, so I'll just repeat it and say that every elementary school kid should be learning Spanish from the start of Kindergarten. A third language should be mandatory from the start of junior high, although the problem with learning Mandarin or Arabic that late stems from the fact that they are incredibly difficult languages, although if we decided to teach those languages at the start of school (instead of Spanish), we'd be substituting a language that may be very valuable for preparing our students to land a nice job in international business or in an intelligence service, with a language that is infinitely more practical in the States.
Also, I learned Mexican Spanish in high school (not too long ago) and Latin American Spanish in college. Do most of you guys actually learn the Spanish spoken in Spain? If so, how long ago was that?
Additionally, if learning a language is your tool for getting hotties (as Todd mentioned)--screw French and Spanish and go for Italian. You might not meet as many Italians as Spanish or French babes, but I've long been jealous of my American friends who get girls by saying romantic sounded things to girls in Italian.
Posted by: Eric the Political Hack | Dec 11, 2006 4:02:31 PM
Do most of you guys actually learn the Spanish spoken in Spain? If so, how long ago was that?
When I lived in Honduras, I learned local dialect from friends and socializing. In school, formal Spanish--Castillian--was taught (not as a second language, but as the language, the way English is taught here). That was in the early-mid 1970's.
And I gotta tell you: there isn't that much difference. Castillian Spanish is spoken more slowly and deliberately. The "z" sound is pronounced almost in a lisp, so you'd say cruth for cruz, and so forth. And the second person plural familiar has a separate word, as another commenter pointed out (vosotros); in Latin American Spanish, we just say Ustedes. And there are a few different words for things: caro vs.coche, for example. But a Barcelonan would not have a problem understanding or being understood in Miami, nor would his Miami granddaughter be lost when visiting Madrid.
That said, I have to laugh at the whole "Latin American" Spanish vs. Spain's Spanish. Latin America is a huge region, more conceptual than geographic, and within that region there are many dialects--how on earth can a single Rosetta Stone "Latin American Spanish" course cover Cuban, Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan, Costa Rican, Panamanian, Chilean (etc.) differences?
When we moved to Miami, I was surprised how different Cuban Spanish was. The pace is rapid-fire, like Mexican Spanish, but the words are often clipped (like Napolitano Italian) and some words and phrases do not copy, as it were. Tell a Cuban person you'll do something ahorita and they think you mean in a little while, when you actually mean right this minute. That sort of thing. But it's comparable to a New Yorker visiting, say, Atlanta. After a while, you aborb the different meanings and slang terms.
I am rambling, yes, but I want to encourage people to stop casting aspersions on Spain's Spanish. It is neither outdated nor snobbish. Think of it as you would England's English: a good many people speak it, and not all of them are nobility, I assure you. It's the motherland tongue from which the "newer" variants of the language evolved, and it's the language of much great literature, too.
Posted by: litbrit | Dec 11, 2006 4:34:11 PM
litbrit, I got a couple of lessons in Spanish dialects back in 1978. My Roommate Carlos and Carlos-Across-the-Hall made it clear to us other freshmen that Cuban was a vastly inferior dialect to their Puerto Rican. C-A-t-H called Cubans, "sh*t talkin' people".
And Jamie reported how worried his high school Spanish teacher had been when Jamie and his classmates ventured to Miami for a conference. The teacher feared that spending time out in the Cuban markets would ruin their accents.
Posted by: jackd | Dec 11, 2006 5:27:38 PM
jackd, you point out something that's been going on since the beginning of time, I believe (and I'm only in my forties and therefore wasn't actually there to document that, so no-one ask for a link or citation, okay?)
Which is to say, no matter where you go, people love to look down on Other People. Whether it's due to accent differences, class differences, perceived differences in work-ethic levels, taste in clothing, you name it. Even in England, the northern British make fun of those of us born in the South (we're snotty, we speak with a plumb in our mouths, etc.) and the southern Brits make fun of the northerners for being country bumpkins or yobs.
I think most language-oriented people have the kind of ear that picks up a local accent and allows one to be understood, if not blend in completely. The idea that being around someone who speaks a different dialect will permanently ruin one's ability to speak the language is kind of funny, really. I suppose it could happen if you were immersed, day in and day out. But what a shame to avoid the wonderful Cuban markets (the food!) for such a silly reason.
Posted by: litbrit | Dec 11, 2006 6:12:54 PM
I agree with litbrit - I mean if you parse this out, Puerto Ricans are very proud of their culture and heritage (who isn't) - I worked with a guy who looked down on the Dominican Day Parade in New York because "they got 6th Avenue and we got 5th." Cubans think their Spanish is closer to that of Spain. Spaniards think all of Latin America sound like rubes (at least what I've been given to understand). None of it really matters all that much - unless you're in the middle of it.
The French, on the other hand, look down on everyone who can't speak French, without a lot of differentiation. :)
And just to bring it home, how many of y'all feel a little different about Southern accent here in the US of A? Thought so... ;)
Posted by: weboy | Dec 11, 2006 6:21:32 PM
And just to bring it home, how many of y'all feel a little different about Southern accent here in the US of A?
I know that Yankees pretty much live in a cultural bubble, especially those who live in NYC, but the Southerners feel pretty much the same way about thick East coast accents. To us, they can seem very "street-like" uneducated and stupid sounding.....kinda like the thick black 'Ebonic' accent can.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 11, 2006 6:42:13 PM
If you are a high school or college student, and you learn Arabic or Farsi (Iranian), where do you think you will be sent after they draft you?
Posted by: wkwillis | Dec 11, 2006 8:24:23 PM
Gee, wk, I guess they'd send you pretty much the same places after drafting you they'd send you after taking French or Spanish in high school or college.
If there was a draft.
For the sake of argument, say the place you were sent was a Farsi or Arabic speaking place. The main difference your French- or Spanish-speaking self would have is that you'd have no idea what the natives were saying and your Arabic or Farsi-studying peers wouldn't have that problem.
Of course by the time Charlie Rangel manages to reinstate the draft, the U.S. Army will probably be getting ready to ship out as peacekeepers to patrol the Muslim ghettos of La Belle France so maybe you'd make out okay after all.
Posted by: Dick Eagleson | Dec 11, 2006 10:19:41 PM
I took french because I had dreams of conversing with my french mom in her language. The schools do not teach language well and since mom speaks english, well...
But, I do think that this country should learn to speak two languages.
Posted by: vwcat | Dec 11, 2006 11:15:12 PM
My first foreign language was fwench. I subsequently studied Japanese, Arabic, Mandarin, Russian and Persian. I'm not fluent in any of them. In effect, I poccess a "passive" knowledge/understanding.
Language learning is more than vocabulary and grammar,(passive knowledge) it's also about sounds, tempos or cadence: active knowledge. You can only develop those skills by actual usage.
Europeans who speak multiple languages do so out of geographical neccessity. Within a comparatively small area of Europe one may find several different languages widely spoken. In the US, one must travel over great distances to experience the same effect.
As a result, emphasising foriegn language learning to satisfy rare or occasional encounters with foreign speakers is a fruitless endeavor.
Posted by: Ripama | Dec 12, 2006 11:09:23 AM
more people speak french than spanish. that's not true in this hemisphere, but it's true worldwide, largely because of the huge expanse of franocphone africa and the durability of french as a second or third language in former french colonies in the middle east and southeast asia.
it's premature to call it an anacronism to offer french. it is one of the world's major languages. but it would also be nice to open it up to other languages like chinese and arabic as well.
Posted by: upyernoz | Dec 12, 2006 11:49:28 AM
Ezra,
French is the most common second language after English. Speak both, and you can talk to the whole world. It's not just about speaking - it's about thinking, about cultures, about understanding. All handy things if you're a member of a hegemonic nation with a PR in the crapper.
Normally I love your stuff, but this post is pure American exceptionalism.
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig | Dec 12, 2006 1:03:41 PM
Normally I love your stuff, but this post is pure American exceptionalism.
I'm so confused. Ezra is complaining about high school students not studying Chinese or Mexican Spanish, and that shows American exceptionalism? How?
Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 12, 2006 2:05:50 PM
"Why French beats Spanish is more of a mystery - the pronunciation and basic grammar of French is probably a bit easier, so it probably comes down to the inertia noted by Jeff Fecke and others."
I don't know about grammar, but pronunciation-wise I'd think that Spanish (which I'm studying) would be easier for a native English-speaker than French. Single vowels are always pronounced the same way, dipthongs are fairly easy, and "ch", "rr", and "ll" are the only consonant combinations I can think of off of the top of my head. There are predictable rules for stress (if it has an accent, it's on the accented syllable; if it ends in an n, s, or vowel, the stress is on the second-to-last syllable; otherwise, it's on the last syllable). The only two weird things are that some words have accents to differentiate them from other words, and the silent "u" in "que" or "gue"/"gui". (It's there because q always has to be followed by a u but is never pronounced "kw", and because the g is soft in "ge" or "gi"; if you want to make the "gwe" or "gwee" sound you have to use a u with two dots over it, but it's not common.) It's a relief that it's so *phonetic*; if you can say it you can probably spell it, and vice versa.
I don't know how that compares to French, but I'm *deeply* suspicious of any language with so many silent letters. What devilishness are they up to, that they have to try to confuse us with their "aux"s and "qu'est-ce que"s? Why are they so snooty? Why can't they be satisfied, as English is, with a simple "o" or "oe" or "ough" (as in "dough") or "ew" (as in "sew") or "ow" (as in "show") or "oh" or, er, never mind. Anyway, vive le Spanish!
On a more serious and on-topic note, yes, it would probably be a good idea to encourage more learning of Arabic and Mandarin Chinese. Although Mexican Spanish is what I (Arizonan) have been learning. (At least I'm pretty sure it's Mexican Spanish. We don't learn a lot of regional/national variations, so it's probably what our professor learned, and I think that's Mexican Spanish. We learn "ll" as the English consonant "y".) I kinda wish that we learned a little bit more about, for instance, the vosotros form when we conjugate verbs, just so I'll know it if I ever go to Spain, though.
I think that the Headstart/day care idea is a good one. Probably a lot of kids would end up forgetting whatever language they were exposed to without reinforcement later in life, but it would make it easier for them to re-learn it and probably a solid minority would remember it.
Posted by: Gwen | Dec 12, 2006 2:54:14 PM
Students who learn French well in high school, or any of the "legacy" foreign languages", will have much more success learning Arabic, Mandarin, Farsi, or whathaveyou later in life when they need it. The value of learning French is in learning how to learn a language. The benefits of being able to travel in a few different places, pronounce pretentious terms correctly, and read Madame Bovary in the original are nice but they aren't the sole justification.
Of course, I scoffed at this argument in junior high when it was cited as a reason to learn Latin. I was wrong.
Posted by: Brittain33 | Dec 12, 2006 3:39:34 PM
Why does everyone make out that Mandarin is so difficult? It is tonal, which takes a bit of getting used to at first, but it has no genders, verbs do not decline, adjectives do not agree with nouns (in fact there are not even plurals). So the basic language structure is simple.
Of course learning speaking the language fluently is hard, as it is for any language, and requires either learning it young or living in a country where it is the native tongue.
I learned French in high school but it was only when I lived in France for 5 years that I became fluent.
Paul (in Beijing right now!)
Posted by: Paul | Dec 12, 2006 5:25:56 PM
"more people speak french than spanish. that's not true in this hemisphere, but it's true worldwide"
French has ~130 million total 'fluent' speakers; Spanish has ~300 million native speakers, with a total of ~400 million 'fluent'. More people speak Portuguese than speak French.
However, those French-speakers are spread across quite a bit of geography, which keeps French useful.
Russian and Japanese never made sense to anyone with a sense of demographics and geography, only to those who thought those countries would take over the world. Arabic is too fractured to be a very good choice. Hindi and Bengali are highly localized, and the elites in India all speak English anyway. Portuguese is great for Brazil, Portugal, and not much else.
Mandarin would be a lot more useful if it weren't for the written language split. If traditional characters were still used on the mainland and in Singapore, learning it would combine a deep well of speakers in Mainland-and-Taiwan along with a written language portable throughout East Asia. As it is, it's probably less useful than French unless you learn both sets of ideographs.
I'd say the best way to handle things is to do Spanish from K and have the choice of French or Chinese as the third language around grade 7.
Posted by: Anonymous Lunatic | Dec 12, 2006 6:19:38 PM
Paul, I think there are three factors in Mandarin's perceived difficulty. First, Mandarin is different enough that you don't get any free vocabulary like you do with the Romance languages. Second, as you're well aware the Chinese writing system is not alphabetic, and it's certainly more intimidating than the Greek or Cyrillic alphabets. Finally, tones are more difficult for many adults to learn, at least initially. I was able to plow through the Spanish Pimsleur course pretty easily as an adult, but I had much more trouble with the Mandarin Pimsleur before I went to Beijing last year.
I'm actually trying to learn Mandarin, albeit in my usual half-assed way. I want to be able to read it(both traditional and simplified characters), and to speak enough to get by next time I go there.
Posted by: mwg | Dec 12, 2006 9:14:09 PM
Perhaps we ought to do as the multi-lingual Netherlands residents, secure in the knowledge that they and only they speak Dutch, are doing
The Dutch worked that out, more or less, in the 1600s. It takes a while to catch up with that.
There are some reasons why French makes sense as a language for middle-school teaching: it's a fairly gentle introduction to gender, case and inflection. If languages were taught much earlier, then acquisition wouldn't be as pinned to grammar.
I'm sure that 'Fred' has an ass-clench at the thought of children coming home from daycare speaking Spanish, but Rosa the child-minder or Consuela the house-cleaner offer a damned fine way to teach your kids when their language acquisition skills are at their peak, and they ought to be paid appropriately.
Either that, or encourage decent exchanges: reading about Ségo Royal's au pair time in Dublin also brought the revelation that Jacques Chirac worked weekends as a soda jerk while spending a summer at Harvard, and has a treasured certificate signed by Howard Johnson.
(Anyway, French and German are useful as common second languages in Europe: a friend and I survived in eastern Europe with a shared half-decent command of both.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 13, 2006 3:25:49 AM
While it's nice of you to attempt to speak for me, please don't. You simply are not qualified.
Actually, I don't see negatives in learning other languages as, apparently you don't. Why then would we not ask immigrants, both legal and illegal, to learn English?
Why would you laud it for our citizens as a great thing, but somehow, it's a hardship...a burden to ask someone else that moves to this country?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 13, 2006 9:00:21 AM
In much of Latin America Spaniards are seen a little like Ploes were in the US in the past, not-so-intelligent and the butt of jokes. I know of no one from Latin America who wants to have a Spanish accent, unlike the US where a British accent, at least among some, has a certain social value.
What does distinguish groups is not so much the dialect but the education. A poor Mexican, for example, will tend to have a much more limited vocabulary than a rich one and it shows.
Posted by: Gabriel | Dec 13, 2006 5:56:03 PM
Couple of notes, I think Spanish is lots easier than French to pronounce--that French "r"? Please! Grammatically though, French and spanish are quite similar since they are related languages. The class thing can rear its ugly head--I wanted to take Spanish in Junior High but my father vetoed that in favor of the "classier" (Pun intended) French. I did horrible at it, picked up Spanish in college and then later wished I'd studied it from 8th grade on when I did field research in Mexico! A brief note to the English First crowd--Most nonspeakers want to learn English--courses are packed. But it's hard at first (I still cringe when I first have to start using spanish again, I have to kind of warm up a bit) and I never mind people speaking a different language among themselves. Would you?
Posted by: ruviana | Dec 13, 2006 9:39:32 PM
> I never mind people speaking a different language among themselves. Would you?
Well, some people, even including some or many viewed as authorities on etiquette, do seem to think it's impolite to 'speak amongst yourselves' in view of other people, in a language not known to those other people, if a better-known alternative language is readily available.
This has sometimes been a problem when I've tried to get in more German conversation practice with native German speakers in the United States--some seem to feel concerned about being rude if non-German speakers are around.
Posted by: Bob | Dec 17, 2006 3:35:13 PM
I'm an american born citizen and so are my four parents and theirs. We have no known foriegn affiliations. We only speak the language of English, in my community there is a very large latin/hispanic population. My self and many others feel that we "americans" should be afforded education and employment opportunities as new the comers especailly sence our tax dollars are paying for new commers to speak English(ESOL). It is almost like finding a needle in a haystack when it relates to employment over 95% of employers request bilingualism (english/spanish). This is keeping americans black and white out of work. I feel that we should be given the same advantages that they have. If we moved to any spanish speaking nation they will not learn english in order to make things better for us. Hell they will not even learn english in our country we need our elected officials to stand up for Americans across the country. If an individuals wants to obtain a work permit he or she should first be fully english speaking including reading and writing. I guess when it is manditory for elected officails to be bilingual it will then be a change.
One Voice for many
Posted by: Zeppernese Bethel | Jan 2, 2007 3:59:09 PM
I was disturbed to find out that there are ignorant people out there like YOU!!!!! I do not fully know the english language and yet I earn seventeen dollars an hour..... so, screw you and your family in the tooshi!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Vete a la Verga Pinchi Vieja!!!!!!
Posted by: Jonathan Munoz | May 10, 2007 1:12:24 PM
With the world as it is now, China and India is and will be major economies. It just makes sense to introduce such languages into the school system now.
Posted by: Learn Spanish Language | Jul 23, 2007 9:09:16 PM
the reason is because Chinese will never survive as a single international language because it is too difficult to learn, Spanish is not needed due to the fact that the majority of well-educated spanish-speaking people speak english, and the purpse of education in foreign language is to broaden people's minds and intellectual abilities and provide cultural education...anyone who believes that foregn languages are not necessary needs to rethink the purpose of education to begin with. also, french is more useful in high-level government jobs, due to the fact that it is widely spoken, and in countries with higher political and economic status than in spanish-speaking countries.
Posted by: Kate | Jul 26, 2007 1:30:13 AM
I believe the Chinese govt is putting some effort in making Chinese, a more international language.
http://english.people.com.cn/200412/24/eng20041224_168453.html
This is a really different development than let's say India, whose main rise to power is being a low cost, English speaking offshoring destination for IT and support centers. In a way, that's not a whole lot different than let's say the Philippines.
I suspect that Chinese, English, Spanish-French, and then perhaps Russian will be the primary major languages in the coming decades.
Posted by: RandyL | Sep 1, 2007 12:44:45 AM
Forgive me for jumpng in one year late to this discussion, if anyone else is lucky enough to stumble upon this interesting topic. This is going to be really long.
First off, thank you Anonymous Lunatic for your correction on the statistic about French and Spanish speakers. I was appalled at the dead wrong claim that more people worldwide speak French than Spanish. Anyway, I believe the number of native speakers might be even higher, since there are probably many fluent English-speaking Hispanics in the US who don't report Spanish as their native/other language in school-issued home language surveys (including myself and some friends). This is to avoid harassment by public school districts regarding English Language Development classes that they don't need. Basically, a growing number of people BORN in the United States of America are native Spanish speakers (I don't remember the exact percentage). This goes to show that language learning is not just based on economic necessity, but on preservation and practice of culture.
Unfortunately, many ignorant, monolingual Americans find this hard to grasp. Such people also believe that having only one language is the key to unifying this country, which I think is a convenient (and sorry) defense of a poor public education system (sorry for degrading the system and rambling on).
I agree with Jonathan Munoz. (I wish I could add the tilde (~) over the 'n', but English computer text and the English language in general are not friendly to the use of accents, except for certain French-derived words--it makes you wonder about such preferences.) Anyway, Zepperenese Bethel "One [ignorant] voice for many" really needs to do some personal family history research. Also, Bethel (he/she?) really needs to check her/his grammar, spelling, and command of the English language, especially if responding to a discussion having to do with language instruction. (Don't rush when you type next time; it shows!) It is a sorry day when a bilingual first-generation American has to give this advice to an English-only fourth generation "American". Now you (Bethel) know what it feels like to struggle and compete against others in a free job market. And you know what? Boo freakety hoo. That's how the wonderful American system works, as opposed to planned economies in strictly communist countries. Besides, many non-English-speaking workers in the US take jobs where English writing and reading abiltiy is not of primary importance. These are the same jobs that "Americans" such as yourself are not willing to take anyway, so I don't see what you're complaining about.
As for us Hispanics and other people of culture, this goes to show that being multilingual makes people more competetive in the job market. Besides, preserve the culture and stay proud of it. I know that there are subtle differences throughout the Spanish-speaking world, but Hispanics/Latinos should focus on the unity that few other cultures can claim. After all, Spanish can be understood, whether in Mexican, Ecuadorian, Argentine, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Castilian voices. There shouldn't be such a fuss over it.
By the way, I totally agree with the nanny/language instructor idea. It is one of the better ideas to come out of this discussion, along with doing things like the Dutch (mandatory second language from Day 1, choice of third language later).
Finally, one suggestion is to do away completely with the "melting pot" philosophy. I hate the concept of "assimilation" as presented by Americans. Many (Blacks, Indians/Native Americans, etc.) were forced to assimilate, and have lost a part of themselves as a consequence. The idea of a "salad bowl" is much more appealing and relevant to today's diverse society. The melting pot is one of the reasons why monolingual Americans tend to favor monolingualism, belief in a single superior language, and disregard for other languages and cultures both at home and abroad. How often do American travelers NOT demand (not ask, but demand) to be spoken to in English (even after a half-***ed attempt at a simple phrase in the native language)? Focusing more on second language ("foreign language" sounds so alienating) instruction is bound to improve America's suffering world image. If nothing else, that's what could happen.
Posted by: victor | Nov 15, 2007 12:47:37 AM
