Should We Get Serious About Language Learning?

@btthegreat -- this is a topic that I promised to get back to you on, in a thread, some time ago, but never did; so I thought you might care to get this heads- up.

While learning most things provide "benefits,"
I think there are more important priorities, than to require an additional language, for H.S.graduation. I would imagine that a good number of kids already do take a second language; certainly the majority of college bound students. I took 3 years of Spanish, myself, getting all A's, and my Spanish, now, is rather poor, and rudimentary. It's only as good as it is, because of having worked with people, in restaurants, who spoke little English. To be honest, many did not seem especially good, even with their own language (due to, I imagine, incomplete education). My first point, though, is that, if one doesn't regularly use what they learn in school, it will fade, more so, even, than some other types of education.

My second point is that language is best learned at a very young age. So, if we were to follow your suggestion, the best time to focus on it, is the time that kids are still learning our own language, English. Thirdly, the lion's share of jobs requiring Spanish, are due to so many people living in America, who are not English- literate. Therefore, this brings me to my fourth point, that it makes more sense to make English a strong first language, before striding out too far, with Spanish. Having a national language, is more beneficial to a country, and specifically would be to our country, than would be mandating Spanish.

In times of emergency, for example, is every policeman on the force supposed to be bilingual, and repeat any urgent instructions he has to shout to people in the vicinity, a second time, in Spanish? During the Christmas shopping season, our local mall had signs up, requiring masks. Most people complied, though some pulled their masks lower, as soon as they were past the doors. At the escalators, however, were other workers, offering masks to those without them, and trying to get shoppers to maintain proper spacing. Those who were most likely not to be wearing masks, seemed to be Hispanic (and the young), and they were also the ones who one would most see, just waving the worker off, so that it made me wonder if they even realized that they weren't being offered some promotional flier, but being told that the mall kindly requested that they keep a mask over their face.

And what about more mundane circumstances? I have gone into a barber shop, and had to leave without a haircut, because the person who was"best" at English, had only a very basic vocabulary. And I have asked a worker at our local Target for help, only to have to figure out, to my astonishment, that the person knew no English, whatsoever. As far as side benefits are concerned, I would imagine that it does not foster as welcoming an attitude towards Latino immigrants, if Americans: A) are less likely to really get to know them, because of the language barrier; B) are forming their opinions of the larger group-- and we can lecture against stereotyping till the cows come home, but we know, nonetheless, that it is common practice-- based on frustrating experiences of not being understood, I their own land; and C) get the impression, from this lack of having acquired the language of the nation in which they have chosen to live, that Latinos feel, not grateful, but "entitled," and not willing to put forth the effort to truly fit in, as Americans. Again, I state these only as a logical consequences, and as facts that anyone should realize, occur.

I am not unsympathetic to the challenges of learning a new language. But when one is living somewhere, surrounded by its speakers, is the best possible circumstance, in which to really become proficient. Even when I was an "A" student in Spanish, natural speakers spoke much too fast, for me to be able to follow them. This further supports my point, of how much more practical a goal is it, to make sure that all citizens can share one common language, before worrying about adding a second.

I will end by noting that the U.S. is in something of a unique position, regarding the utility of having a second language. This is because, for one thing, English is the best known second language of the world. For a number of major fields of activity-- such as financial services, banking, investing, and so forth, for one example-- English IS the international language. Secondly, unlike citizens of Great Britain, we do not live amongst a community of many small to medium sized nations, in which we are likely to be encountering all sorts of languages, every time we go on holiday. Our entire continent comprises only the 3 countries of ourself, Canada-- which is nearly all English- fluent, even among the French Canadians-- and Mexico, where English speakers are not too hard to find, at least near the border, and at the tourist locations where most American visitors go. So, while I haven't objections to people learning a second language, if they choose to, there does not seem to be sufficient cause for urgency, in making this a national goal. A focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering ,and math) fields, where we know we are facing a severe shortfall of workers, would seem a much more practical target.

 

Thanks for asking a question I have frequently asked myself.

If I understand you correctly, you support a greater emphasis on learning a foreign language. I agree in general but think that a student's course of study should be what is ultimately in the best interest of that individual student.

For example, if a student has a family to support (sick parents or children) and is committed to taking up a trade (electrician, plumber, HVAC etc), there is little need for him to learn a foreign language even though the exposure to a different culture and mental discipline would enrich his life.

On the other hand, any student who can somehow manage to muster the time and money required to take foreign language courses should do so or find another way to become fluent in at least one other language

Even though I took courses in Spanish, French and German, it was only because I moved to what was then W. Germany where I worked, lived and studied in German that I became fluent in the language. I became so interested in the evolution of languages that I went on to study Middle German, Elizabethan English & Middle English when I wasn't doing grueling manual labor to pay the rent, riding my bicycle with friends or hitch-hiking around.

I think that most people who have become fluent in a language will admit that they learned that language much faster living in the country than they did warming a chair in a classroom in the US like I did.

That still doesn't mean that the foreign languages should not be readily available for those students who use their time more wisely.

Thanks,

 

A large part of my job is managing projects. I can't help but worry about the details.

 

I thought the topic was learning additional languages to help develop cognitive skills and further career opportunities. I don't see how that would address things like anti-Asian hate or Muslim mosque issues.

 

Prejudicial hate, usually has a large constituent of its source in fear, due to ignorance of, and unfamiliarity with, other cultures. I had not been aware that was unkotare's premise, when I had written my post at the top of this page, #26. Here is the part that touched on your, yet to be asked, question:

For "B," & "C," I earlier listed some examples. I could have cited more of them, but my post was already fairly lengthy, and listed a good number of ideas, so I didn't want to get overly bogged- down, in any one of them. But, for instance, what about when non-English speaking drivers are on a highway, on which the state has pulled out those electric signs, to display an important message? Do we expect that the Spanish- speaker would pull over, pull out a translator, and figure it out? Or maybe the signs should flash in both English, and then Spanish? In my area, though, if it was going to be shown in Spanish, it should also be in Portuguese. But how many English- speaking drivers would then miss the message, because they first got it in their sight line, just as the English version was flashing off, and they were passed the sign, by the time it returned? Or I suppose they could flash between them really quickly, so that some people might need to see it several times, to get the whole thing.

I know this might sound like a petty annoyance, but I believe it can be upon just such a foundation, which the moss of prejudice, may grow; at the very least, it adds fuel for the flames. In all honesty, while I am not a bigoted person, whenever I'm behind someone at a red light, in the right hand lane, who isn't turning, despite having a clear path, I can't help but wonder if the driver is a foreigner, not realizing that, except where expressly marked, and in New York City, it's "right on red, after stop." A little annoying. Anyway, here is the part of my post, leading into the part, I quoted, above:

 

@cristiansoldier -- addendum:

Or just imagine yourself, driving around somewhere unfamiliar, while in search of someone's home address, or for some business, that you just don't seem to be able to find. Making things more frustrating, no one seems around, at least not right by the roadside.

Then, you see someone walking, at the edge of the road, with no cars behind you. "It must be someone who lives nearby," you think; "finally, I'm catching a break. Maybe I can even make it (before dark/before they close, or whatever phrase works with your personally- imagined scenario)."

So you stop and say, "Excuse me, could you tell me where Soldier Street, is?" But, instead of the anticipated key, for solving your logistical puzzle, you get in response, "No English." So, you try to call on your rusty, high school Spanish; but, after several minutes of agonizing miscommunication, you realize that not only does she/he not speak English, but they don't speak Spanish. In fact, the person has the nerve to act like Portuguese is a much different language than Spanish, so doesn't know what you are asking (I am being facetious, here, BTW).

I'm not saying this incident is going to turn someone into a racist, but nor is it going to give that American driver, a good impression of the speakers of that language, to add to, or upon which, to be built. After several experiences, in which this nationality-- and for some, all Latinos will fit into one mental basket-- has come across to you as rude, or unhelpful, or had just meant aggravating encounters-- even though it's clearly not enough of a sample size-- that woman, plus some grocery clerk, in the parking lot, there to gather up shopping carts, who'd told you, in a way that came across as too brusque, to bring your cart back (after you've unloaded your groceries, of course), because he, apparently, felt you should do his job for him-- even if you usually bring your cart back to the store, anyway; and some auto store clerk, who seemed to be having a fairly long, personal conversation, in his own language, while you were in a relatively long line, waiting for service; are going to combine, at least for a significant number of people, to establish an image for that ethnic group, that will then only be more likely to solidify, rather than be erased.


Again, I realize that the alternative to that unhelpful Portuguese woman, if she were not in the country, would be nobody walking alongside the road, but I don't think logic plays much of a role, in developing stereotypes.

 

there is nothing here with which I disagree at all except to say that you are measuring the need and utility by too narrow yardstick - ie the language proficiency itself. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/World-Languages/BenefitsofSecondLanguage.pdf

There is a lot of clinical work that suggests that kids who learn a second language show longer attention spans, better memories and listening skills, greater cognitive flexibility, better problem solving skills, and higher development in 'spacial abilities' ( not sure what that means!). That second language reinforces the coursework in English, including English structure grammar, vocabulary etc which has been reflected in standardized test scores. Those second language learners also show greater proficiency in math and social studies which are also reflected in standardized tests as well as enhanced reading comprehension

This one is interesting! "Children of color, children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and English Language Learners make the greatest proportionate achievement gains from foreign language study. Early foreign language study is less dependent on previous verbal learning than most other elements of the elementary school curriculum and this allows some students to succeed who have otherwise experienced repeated failure in school. (Curtain & Dahlberg 2004)

It can also support a less ethno-centric way of seeing the world. You don't learn this language in a vacumm. You learn a bit of history, culture, art, geography while you learn that language and that too has its benefits. Its not a bad thing to learn early that the American way of talking, thinking is not the only way.

Its sort of like short changing the value of music and fine or visual arts education. Educators have long seen what happens to kids math and science scores when they paint, draw, or when they sing, dance, or learn to play Happy Birthday on that stupid recorder.

 

It is hard to disagree with that statement. You could easily spend a career studying and writing papers on how any of the three causes your listed contributes to prejudice and hate.

I am not sure if it was unkotare's premise. I came up inadvertently in our discussion from post #13, #16 and #18. I don't think the intention was to suggest that learning additional languages would prevent hate or prejudice anymore the acquiring knowledge in general correlates to lower occurrences.

 

I think it's a good idea but but probably for a college track, not for all HS graduates, or you are going to wind up with a lot more HS drop outs who can't meet the requirement.

 

~ It's too late. USA needs to abandon the Teachers' Union and begin letting students learn how to think again. School choice will push us in that direction. There is always hope . ..

 

You never plan for anyone to drop out.

 

It wasn't.

 

If you become a bigot, that's on you.

 

A student's L1 can be one of the most powerful tools in helping them to acquire an L2. With each additional language studied, the stronger the student's language skills become in general.

 

That's unfortunate, because it will happen.

 

Of course it will. You do not plan for ALL students based on that.

 

The point I was making, as is my wont, was a pragmatic one. I was not, therefore, trying to lay blame, for as you say, we are all responsible for our own character, views, & behavior. I was also staying on topic for your thread (which is about mandating the learning of a second language). The viewpoint which my addendum post was supporting, was that it deserved higher priority, to maximize the proportion of the population who shared at least one language, in common.

The little vignette, you quoted, was my suggestion that being able to communicate with immigrants, could only alleviate anti- immigrant sentiment. Do you disagree?

Again, this is just a practical observation. Whose fault something is, or even whose responsibility it should be, are extraneous considerations, to what is the reality. If you missed it, I had an earlier post, citing more of the practical benefits of all people in a country being capable of understanding one another. The help it would provide towards us getting along better, was just an added benefit.

 

I'm not so sure. Haters are gonna hate regardless.

 

There's, surely, a lot of truth to that. But is it not possible that all who end up having prejudiced views-- and in many cases, I think "hate" would be too strong a word to use-- are not, intrinsically, "haters?" Might not some, merely have become misled?

 

All sorts of people in the world. To some degree this reminds me of the thread about the rapid increase in mixed-race people in America.

 

One might, I suppose, make that comparison.

 

It turns out, I think I may have been mistaken about it being you, who I had never gotten back to. The topic, BTW, had not been the English language, but immigration-- though I figured there was a relationship, at least, between them. But thanks for joining the discussion, anyway! As for the arguments, in your reply:

Yes, but many other courses of study-- music, for example-- also have shown to have these positive impacts on the ability to learn other things. So it comes down to prioritization. The fact is that almost no students are going to become fluent, or even real- world competent, in a language, from just two or three years of it, in Jr. High/High School. It is one of those things that, if it is not used, it will be to a good extent, forgotten (or at least will rust into poor working condition). I would make the same argument against various higher mathematics, for students who were not likely to ever use them, in a career. That is not the same, though, as saying that there be no mention of algebraic concepts in class, or foreign words/languages, either. I just don't think that, for students who are not naturally either drawn to, or talented in, these areas, it makes sense to compel a full course study of them, rather than just to incorporate bits and pieces of them, in the study of other subjects.

I am somewhat dubious of the idea that time spent learning Spanish or French, is going to yield a greater benefit to an English speaker's literacy, or facility with our own language, than if that time were invested in more work on the English language. The reason I feel this way is because any language is, at its heart, a symbology for comprehending the world: it is a way of thinking. Theoretically, if one had completely mastered the English language, as a way of conceptualizing life, then learning a different language, I would agree, would only serve to broaden that person's perspective. But, realistically, most American students, by far, are nowhere near what could be termed "skilled," in the use of English. So, trying to teach them another language, with different grammatical rules, when they are not clear on those of English, seems only likely to further confuse them.

While there are people with a knack for languages, who can be well-spoken in multiple tongues, I think these are uncommon cases. My impression is that most people who speak numerous languages, speak them at a lower proficiency, at just a functional level, at best. This may often be true, even of the speaker's main language. I am arguing that it is preferable to be at college- level in English, as one's only language, than it would be to use English at the high school level, and also be able to write & speak grade school level Spanish (or some other language).

It certainly is interesting to hear multi- lingual people, when they combine different languages, in the same sentence. I had a friend, in my youth, whose family did this with English & Chinese. But that does not make one a better speaker of either language. To the Spanglish speaker, that is its own language, which cannot be fully understood by anyone who does not understand something of both languages.
Again, I do not think this raises the person's ability to express their thoughts, to a higher level.

Or, you could spend more time learning history-- another subject on which Americans are not generally strong-- and throw a bit of language in, with it (which I think would be more beneficial).

No, it's not. Because music & art are different forms of communication, of expression, making them more beneficial, than just learning another form of written & spoken language.

 

.
It does.

 

"More beneficial"? No.

 

My two claims, which you excerpted, had been attached to supporting arguments. You have provided no rationale for your disagreements. By that measure, alone, your point does not stand up to mine: you cannot win a debate, without putting forth an argument. Saying, "It does," or "More beneficial? No," is not making any argument.

If you do wish to add an argument to your unsupported assertions, I have two, reasonable, requests.

1) Please show my full argument for any of my conclusions that you will attempt to contest.

2) If you provide web links, please describe, in your own words, what the link is, and what information in it, either supports your position or/and contradicts mine. Alternatively, you could SNIP a self-explanatory quote, from your link.