I don't usually comment on American political issues. I read about them, but, hey, what do I know? I'm a Canadian and I live in Hong Kong. I lived in the States for a couple of years, but that seems hardly a reason.
I do know about second-language education, though. When I was six years old, my parents sent me to the newly-created Saskatoon French School. I had two years of immersion there, and much more later on. I also now work at an Institute of Education. Two months of the year, I get out and about in Hong Kong, going to see native speakers of Cantonese, Mandarin and Shanghainese teach English.
I think the discussion of language education in the American press is very simplistic and uninformed.
A lot of extreme statements are made about the status of language education. To listen to some people, the widespread monolingulism of Americans is just plain stupidity. I don't buy that. Americans are for the most part native speakers of the world's dominant language. Speakers of other languages that have been in that situation globally or regionally have responded the same way. It used to be that hardly any Russians spoke anything but Russian. I don't hear great things about language education in France either, and that is because France has been an imperial power, as the USA now is. Learning a new language is a long road, and imperial powers have often preserved their resources by getting other people to speak their language.
Is it true that you don't need to speak anything but English? In a way it is. I live quite conveniently in Hong Kong and don't speak more than a few phrases in Cantonese. Even in countries with no history of English domination, you can greatly get by on English, because somebody's niece speaks enough English to understand you, or something like that. Business happens in English. In most fields, academic publishing is more or less exclusively in English.
There's a "but" coming, though, and that's where we get to the relevance of Finland. The Finns speak a language that is completely unrelated to other European languages except Estonian and Hungarian. Their main second language used to be Swedish, but it's English now. They learn other languages, because to be a unilingual Finnish speaker is to be cut off from the wider world.
Some people seem to imagine that to learn a language is to acquire a sort of technical skill, like Morse code--but that is far from true. To learn a language is to gain a kind of very personal contact with another culture. To learn a language is emotional, and it changes you. Nothing affects language learning more than the learner's feeling toward the people who speak that language. Perhaps it is possible to learn a language in a purely technical way, but I don't think this occurs frequently.
Many bilingual people have a somewhat different personality depending on the language they are speaking at the moment. I have been told that I am more emotional, and that I wave my hands around more when I am speaking French. And to be able to speak a language is to want to speak it, to miss speaking it when you can't. A language has a meaning in a society, but it also has a meaning to an individual. Speaking French was the first thing I could do that my parents couldn't do, and that's part of its meaning for me.
All this is to say that the great and necessary stress on language education in Finland necessarily alters who the teachers and students are. They are emotionally different because they must look outward, because they must relate intimately to the Other throughout their education. They know what a Finn is, because they know the Other, because they know how they relate to something else. And this is true not only intellectually but also emotionally.
It is understandable that second language education for the majority should be a low priority in the USA. This low priority is partly just structural to the situation the country is in. But the lack of second language education changes the whole nature of schooling, and there is a loss in educational terms, in terms of the formation of the individual.
What is to be done? I don't know. Initial impetus in language education has normally been from practical need. But if you're looking for key differences between Finland and the United States, I think this is a big one.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
kipouros
Smithbarney
William Morley
odetteroulette
m. a.h
Moana
Salon.com
Comments
I'm a member of a writing circle and so few people -- adults with the average American college degree -- understand the difference between perfective and imperfective tenses. Clarity disappears.
Naturally, with the influx of the Latino population in the USA, and that community's resistance to linguistic assimilation, it will be increasingly more important for Americans to become bilingual in Spanish— particularly given that the Hispanophone population of the USA isn't localized to a particular region of the country, but widespread and pervasive in both small towns and large urban areas.
Great post.
I am that rare American who does believe in grammar, and in an ideal world, people would realize the beauty of their language's structure, but ultimately, it can't really be the guiding principle. When the rubber hits the road, being able to say "Me allergic penicillin" will be more useful than any ability to craft a well-turned phrase.
I agree with your post's point about learning a language and changing perspective. You learn of the other and so are never the same.
(rated)
Some of my colleagues here think I'm horrible for saying so, but I'd honestly rather that the average American learned how to write a coherent paper in English first.
Chomsky regarded language as rules-governed creativity. Exercising that creative aspect of our minds while gaining communicative competence would appear to me to have a direct bearing on the straits in which we find ourselves.
Our jingoistic culture that preaches our own supremacy comes with a natural disdain for other nations and their cultures. How many times have we been traveling abroad and witnessed Americans frustrated with Frenchmen or Greeks who can't speak English on their own native soil? Americans just shouting at people when they're the ones who aren't equipped for proper communication. The presumptuousness!
Malusinka, Thomas and Caveat all commented on the content of language learning. Thomas takes the current dominant view that language is about communication. Malusinka is a traditionalist, wanting verb tenses, and Caveat laments the shortcomings of the audiolingual approach. I'm glad to reassure Caveat that the audiolingual approach has not been taught in teachers' colleges since the seventies or at the latest early eighties. Most of those trained that way would be near retirement now. I'm a bit surprised to hear that even they are still using it. Everybody hated it, and most teachers were glad to abandon it. The traditional approach has virtues, which is why it never quite dies. As Malusinka points out, it brings precision, but as Thomas points out, it doesn't always bring the ability to communicate information. I suspect she's coming from an East European perspective. The communicative approach does tend to bring the ability to communicate information, but there's a danger of leaving the cultural richness behind because all the emphasis is on the utility of language.
Thomas, LT and inchkaka, in different ways, refer to motivations to learn languages. When my parents sent me to French school, I think they did so largely for ideological reasons. They wanted their children to have broad horizons, be tolerant and open to the world. This goes with a certain vision of Canada. Many English Canadians have reasons like that. There's also a practical reason to back it up: speaking French in Canada brings opportunity. In the federal civil service, you must speak both languages to move up beyond a certain rank, and in the private sector, there are high- and low-level jobs that involve both languages. Inchkaka, the evidence is that learning a second language is good for competence in the first language: that is, a child who learns another language thoroughly and properly will, in almost all cases, speak and write the first language better. (The evidence for this, I should add, is based on situations where the two languages overlap, like English does with French or Spanish.) It's certainly true that you can get by almost anywhere in a major city with only English, but as I've tried to say, communication of information is not the only issue.
Thomas and Rob bring up the need to have empathy in language learning. Read this wonderful poem:
http://theswisslounge.blogspot.com/2008/09/alastair-reid.html
Stellaa: No, I hadn't heard of Globish. Long ago, there was something called the Basic English movement. Perhaps this is related. Certainly, unilingual people sometimes have surprising problems understanding second-language learners, and have less patience with communication problems in general, even among native speakers.
But in the US one sometimes has to work to find a reason to use a language. I've lived in Latin America, so had real occasion to reify my Spanish skills, and visited Rio for Carnaval for 2 weeks, which is why I dove into Portuguese. But in the US, I don't use either very much. I spoke more Spanish in Paris when I visited for a few days a dozen years go than I had in the entire year before (or after) that... And even on the net people speak English so the opportunity doesn't present itself.
Then there's the fact that it's a no-brainer for people from other countries to add English since it's used everywhere now. But in the US, picking up any single other language has only limited utility. Even languages like Spanish, French, and German (which are all taught in our schools) and languages like Japanese, Mandarin, and Russian (which ought to be taught in more of our schools) have only limited utility to the traveler or the business person compared to the ubiquity of English. Learning them is not a ticket to go anywhere. So the cost to utility ratio for US people is different. That's not a reason not to do it, but it is sometimes a reason you don't see people advertising their second language.
When I go traveling, I often lament not having a t-shirt in the native language that says "I speak other languages, just not this one."
See...
Immersion Education for the Millennium: What We Have Learned from 30 Years of Research on Second Language Immersion
My children went to a public elementary French Immersion Program, one K-5th grade, the other K-2 (we moved him for other reasons). Both speak French fluently and the older one reads it as well. While both will likely lose their French, as they are not currently enrolled in it, I do believe there were some "meta-language" benefits.
Of course, there is no way to prove how well they would have done not in an immersion program. But, they understand word and language constructs very well for their ages, have extensive vocabularies, and have shown an ease in picking up Spanish (that they are now taking) and an awareness/openness of other cultures.
There are other studies that show that building these early language connections also improve neural connections that help in mathematics and music learning, as well. Again, I don't know how much I believe all of that, but I don't think the French immersion experience has hurt them in any way, with the small exception that my 7th grader has awful English spelling, but that may be genetic (dh is dyslexic) and is being corrected through practice in middle school.
A very nice post that presents some interesting perspective.
I grew up in El Paso, Texas. Back then the Hispanic population was probably about 70 to 80 percent of the total. I had blonde hair and blue eyes, so I certainly stood out in a crowd. But my mother was raised in Mexico, so Spanish was essentially her first language (she was not Hispanic). Since all the grade schools taught Spanish, and my mother encouraged me to learn the language, I spoke Spanish better than most other kids I knew who did not take learning it seriously at all.
I used to ride the bus to town to shop the stores, many if not most of which were owned and operated by Hispanic individuals with poor to non-existent English speaking ability. During one of my earliest of such excursions I had a valuable learning experience. I went into a record store (CD’s had not even been heard of yet), and recognized the glares coming from the clerks as being based in the resentment that was common among Hispanics because there was a lot of prejudice against them. I had the thought that I should try communicating in Spanish, and when I did, the entire atmosphere shifted dramatically. Suddenly there were smiles and an attitude of helpfulness came over them. One clerk who had been in the back even came out and looked around to see what was going on, smiled and nodded, just before she headed back to what she had been doing.
My Spanish wasn’t great, but the small effort I had made to show respect through trying to communicate in their language made all the difference in the world. Between their English and my Spanish, we were able to somehow put all the other common negative societal influences behind us; language became a common ground for rising above them.
I think we need to do all we can to "improve neural connections".
;-)
Here are two more interesting articles I found in a quick google search:
Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning
this one a PDF File...
A Model for Language Learning: From a Brain-considerate Approach
I am no expert on these subjects, but I have been thinking about them for awhile in terms of school choices for my kids. I have been a strong advocate for arts, music, and second language learning in the schools because I strongly believe: (1) there are cognitive benefits to learning through a variety of disciplines and methods (2) people learn in different ways and (3) keeping kids engaged is half the battle.
And, to say, I really like your point that learning a second language, like the Finns do, fundamentally changes a person. My daughter, who had more years of French, thinks and expresses herself differently in French than in English. It is the funniest thing to hear her say, "I don't know how you say it in English" and to be frustrated that English does not have the "perfect phrases" that French does.
and oh, I am so not a French snob; I have very limited skills and my children do not allow me to speak it aloud, my accent is so bad.
Yes, I know. My friends back in Saskatoon have children in immersion, and they visibly think of the whole affair in generational terms: We young people speak French. Older people just think they do.
The broader perspective on education that you describe has in the past been utterly absent from Hong Kong education, but there is a movement toward greater emphasis on culture and creativity. That's why they hired me at all.
I read in The Economist that people who speak two or more languages are much less likely to get Alzheimer's. There is direct benefit, of course, in not getting Alzheimer's. At the same time, though, this finding seems to indicate that language learning changes the brain in ways scientists are only beginning to understand
This has been a very enlightening discussion. If I may add to my earlier comments, especially in defense of Dewey (and what I can remember through my purple haze), I think Dewey's educational theories (and it went much beyond language teaching) were a reaction againstformal discipline. In fact, his ideas of unfolding and growth of the individual in a democratic social setting (the much derided bases for "progressive education") seem to anticipate Chomsky's view of language as "rules-governed creativity". Both J.L.Austin theoretically (How to do things with words) and M.A.K. Halliday more practically (Learning How to Mean) seem to me extensions of this same philosophy.
And I checked with my daughter. Second language instruction in the USA, even in college -- and even more so in the teach yourself CD's flooding the market -- appears to be a modified, limited hangout audiolingual approach. What the U.S.Army hath wrought, who can put asunder? :-)
I've just had a quick look over "audiolingual" on Google, and it does seem to be around in some places. Educationists like most of the colleagues in my department walk in the sunlight, believing that the audiolingual approach had been banished long ago, but it lives on in the shadows.
It is the Voldemort of language learning.
I've asked some of my colleagues about the audio-lingual approach in the US. One American remarks that within her experience this isn't true, but that education in the US is so fragmented that it might well be true elsewhere. Another thinks the US Army might be still using it, and goes on to say that within a theoretically communicative program, you might still find much in-effect audiolingual stuff going on. (For any who might be mystified by this discussion, the audiolingual approach involves a filmstrip and a tape recorder. Students first repeat the sentence that goes with each picture, then memorize the sentences to the point where they can say the dialogue from looking at the pictures, without help from the tape. Finally, they do substitution exercises, replacing words in lines from the dialogue--cycling through pronouns to get all verb forms in, for example.)
The ideals of communicative language teaching are very attractive, but the approach requires somebody who is actually a good teacher to make it work. One of the advantages of audiolingual is that it hardly matters whether the teacher is good or not. Communicative approach badly taught may leave the students with nothing at all. An attentive student will learn from a filmstrip and a tape regardless. Similarly, a traditional grammatical approach will always leave a student with some learning in some form, even if fluency is not part of it.
I have experienced how language lets you into a persons life, world, mind and heart. You find out about their culture and get to actually experience it. You enjoy their food, learn to cook it and make it part of your own "culture." You can sit comfortably in their living room and chat, and laugh and cry with them. And they can feel comfortable to come into yours. Language allows us to help others at important times. To communicate needs and bring about understanding. Learning a language is like finding a treasure!
The world is getting smaller day by day. We will find ourselves isolated or integrated as individuals, couples, families, groups and ultimately nations. Language can really help bridge the gaps.
Resistance to another person's language, I think, is resistance to the person, and choosing ignorance over a wonderful education. I say give it a shot! It is not only enriching. It is FUN!
Just like French was the language of global diplomacy and economics in the 19th Century, English established its linguistic dominance in the 20th Century. Even though its life may be extended beyond expectations, as it has become integral to cultural exchanges, historical references and popular culture, this too may change some day.
But that is not why everyone should learn a second language. Plasticity of our brain allows us to exercise cognitive abilities that surpass expectations. As a speaker of multiple languages, I can vouch for the fact that the ability to communicate in numerous languages also allows me to perceive the world itself through multiplicity of perspectives and contexts. Language is tied to cultural expression, and societal norms. To speak multiple languages is a gift -- one that allows you to see and understand and shape the world in separate frameworks. In other words, it allows you to see the world through different eyes. And that is of value.
an aspect that other respondents have touched on lightly is the resulting insight into other cultures. it is particularly valuable when you get away from our cousins in the german and romance stream.
my acquaintance with mandarin and vietnamese showed me that life was perfectly possible without worrying much about person, gender, tense, or completion. they really do think differently. and it works, for them. another reason for americans to be a little less complacent, or arrogant, about the superiority of their society. this will be increasingly useful as america's standard of living continues to crumble.
The Administrative Court has now rejected the appeal and decided to uphold the order for Fadayel’s deportation.
The Egyptian grandmother has applied for a residence permit in Finland based mainly on humanitarian reasons.
Fadayel was left a widow in Egypt a couple of years ago. She has said that she has no relatives in Egypt, while in Finland Fadayel has three children and some grandchildren.
According to the Administrative Court, the longing felt by the applicant and her close relatives for each other does not constitute sufficient grounds for granting her a residence permit.
Fadayel has also appealed to her poor health. However, the Administrative Court argues that Fadayel’s illnesses: diabetes, high blood pressure, other physical ailments, and depression do not make her totally dependent on her children. The court says that she can be treated in her native country.
These days, the common standard language and national culture are being threatened by other languages, particularly by English.
The usage of the Finnish language is becoming more narrow in certain branches of science and in some sub-cultures, charges the language policy programme drafted by the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland (KOTUS).
The programme urges the Finnish state to set up a working group to compile an official language policy programme that would comprehensively recognise the languages used in Finland.
According to Professor Pirkko Nuolijärvi, the director of KOTUS, the prerequisites for the preservation of the Finnish language in all fields of society include activity from the users of the language as well as policies that support the use of the Finnish language. It is a question of preserving Finnish democracy.
”Multilingualism is important in itself, but if the language of a society is not being used in all contexts, with English being the sole language of choice in commerce and science, the situation easily leads to inequality and to the emergence of certain inner circles."
Nuolijärvi’s political perspective on the fate of Finland expands to a global dimension in the mind of Professor Janne Saarikivi, a specialist in Finno-Ugric language research.
”The world is already now facing huge inequality, as many people can speak English - the dominant language - as their mother tongue”, Saarikivi notes.
In addition to equality, national identity is at stake, as culture is organically intertwined with language. Saarikivi also brings up creativity.
”Language is the medium for thinking, while various languages have highly different associative relationships. If we only use English, part of the potential associations of thoughts are basically ruled out”, Saarikivi continues.
As an example of the state of play, Professor Saarikivi mentions that the hugely successful Finnish company Nokia has adopted English as its official operating language, and that the Finnish media continuously laments the poor [English] language skills of some Finnish politicians.
”Within the European Union they would have the right to use Finnish all the time if they so wish, but this privilege is not regarded as important in our 'colonial consciousness'. Even the Academy of Finland generally ranks English-language publications higher than the Finnish ones”, Saarikivi claims.
Actually, Europeans speak only three languages, Saarikivi argues: Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages.
”In structure and lexis, Finnish differs from these languages in quite fundamental fashion, which would actually offer unique possibilities for cultural and even economic creativity”, notes Saarikivi.