Learning a language is never easy, unless you are naturally talented in picking up a language or if you are focussed enough to see it through. However there are some clear advantages to learning and more importantly using a second language depending of course where you are in the world and which language you have learned!
Been fighting and losing against a dodgy broadband connection for most
of the day. As usual it appears to be no-ones fault and no-one knows
when it will be back to normal or it seems exactly what is wrong. The
further we get into the 21st century the worse the customer service
becomes. Hopefully this post actually gets published!
Anyway before it all went haywire earlier today I caught a glimpse of a BBC Education News piece from yet another body I had never heard of The National Centre for Languages. The clue what this post is about is in their moniker.
It seems that they are arguing that Britain's economic prosperity is being hampered by the fact that English is the second most widely spoken on earth (in terms of speakers not countries in which it is used or taught). They argue that Britons are lazy when it comes to speaking a second language and that laziness is now filtering through the education system with the result that fewer and fewer kids are taking foreign languages to GCSE level and beyond. "We are going to be held back as a nation as we seek to emerge from the economic downturn" said Teresa Tinsley from the National centre.
What proof they have for this statement to be true isn't clear. It is illogical to me for one reason if the 'langauge of the world' is English how can the 'host nation' be at a disadvantage?
Kathryn Board CEO of the same National centre backs this up "Our engagement with the non-English speaking world will remain superficial and one-sided unless we develop our capacity in other languages."
Herein lies the dilemma facing anyone who wants to learn a second language, at any time of life, which also faces every school in the land which wants to teach another language to their charges. Surely the non-English speaking world is a shrinking percentage of the worlds countries as speaking English will allow people from any two countries in the world to converse with each other.
Which language(s) would you choose to teach and what basis would you use for selecting those languages?
In terms of speakers Mandarin Chinese is the only other language worth learning. It is one of the hardest to learn, even harder than it is for foreigners of any kind to learn English, but that should not be a barrier to seeing it appear in more and more schools. China is without doubt a sleeping giant that is quietly waking up and anyone with the language combination of English and Mandarin would go far in this world if China continues to grow in influence.
There is also an argument that kids should be taught a language of a country that is geographically close as these are the people they are most likely to come into contact with. Trouble here is that there are a lot of countries geographically close so once again how do you choose. Welsh, Flemish, French or German all have their plus points but how on earth do you choose?
When I was at school we had the to me bizarre combination of French and Russian as the two language alternatives. It was compulsory to take one or the other to O level.
Given the fact that the cold war was in full swing perhaps my school thought the Iron curtain would wrap itself around the UK at some point and was preparing us for all eventualities but despite this I took the easier option of French and promptly failed the French O level. This was because even way back then I couldn't see the point of learning a second language unless you knew for certain that you were going to live or work in a specific foreign country.
For example.
Say I had learned French well and passed my O level in it and then went to work in Russia!
Chances are the Russians would be able to speak English as would any French people in Russia as both the Russians and the French have but one choice to learn, English!
So what is the answer to this conundrum?
As I've got older I have realised that there is always more than one way to 'skin a cat' and language learning is far, far easier than it was in my day. I have even begun to learn 'simplified Chinese' aged 49 because it's now something I want to do just to see if I can.
However in the course of my research I have come across a way of 'speed learning any foreign language'. I haven't tried it yet but it's methods might just make learning foreign languages easy enough to appeal to kids of all ages.
Here's the link for those who are interested and as ever if you have any views on why our kids should learn a second language, or indeed which ones they should learn then enter a comment below.
Anyway before it all went haywire earlier today I caught a glimpse of a BBC Education News piece from yet another body I had never heard of The National Centre for Languages. The clue what this post is about is in their moniker.
It seems that they are arguing that Britain's economic prosperity is being hampered by the fact that English is the second most widely spoken on earth (in terms of speakers not countries in which it is used or taught). They argue that Britons are lazy when it comes to speaking a second language and that laziness is now filtering through the education system with the result that fewer and fewer kids are taking foreign languages to GCSE level and beyond. "We are going to be held back as a nation as we seek to emerge from the economic downturn" said Teresa Tinsley from the National centre.
What proof they have for this statement to be true isn't clear. It is illogical to me for one reason if the 'langauge of the world' is English how can the 'host nation' be at a disadvantage?
Kathryn Board CEO of the same National centre backs this up "Our engagement with the non-English speaking world will remain superficial and one-sided unless we develop our capacity in other languages."
Herein lies the dilemma facing anyone who wants to learn a second language, at any time of life, which also faces every school in the land which wants to teach another language to their charges. Surely the non-English speaking world is a shrinking percentage of the worlds countries as speaking English will allow people from any two countries in the world to converse with each other.
Which language(s) would you choose to teach and what basis would you use for selecting those languages?
In terms of speakers Mandarin Chinese is the only other language worth learning. It is one of the hardest to learn, even harder than it is for foreigners of any kind to learn English, but that should not be a barrier to seeing it appear in more and more schools. China is without doubt a sleeping giant that is quietly waking up and anyone with the language combination of English and Mandarin would go far in this world if China continues to grow in influence.
There is also an argument that kids should be taught a language of a country that is geographically close as these are the people they are most likely to come into contact with. Trouble here is that there are a lot of countries geographically close so once again how do you choose. Welsh, Flemish, French or German all have their plus points but how on earth do you choose?
When I was at school we had the to me bizarre combination of French and Russian as the two language alternatives. It was compulsory to take one or the other to O level.
Given the fact that the cold war was in full swing perhaps my school thought the Iron curtain would wrap itself around the UK at some point and was preparing us for all eventualities but despite this I took the easier option of French and promptly failed the French O level. This was because even way back then I couldn't see the point of learning a second language unless you knew for certain that you were going to live or work in a specific foreign country.
For example.
Say I had learned French well and passed my O level in it and then went to work in Russia!
Chances are the Russians would be able to speak English as would any French people in Russia as both the Russians and the French have but one choice to learn, English!
So what is the answer to this conundrum?
As I've got older I have realised that there is always more than one way to 'skin a cat' and language learning is far, far easier than it was in my day. I have even begun to learn 'simplified Chinese' aged 49 because it's now something I want to do just to see if I can.
However in the course of my research I have come across a way of 'speed learning any foreign language'. I haven't tried it yet but it's methods might just make learning foreign languages easy enough to appeal to kids of all ages.
Here's the link for those who are interested and as ever if you have any views on why our kids should learn a second language, or indeed which ones they should learn then enter a comment below.
It's important to learn a modern foreign language for a large variety of reasons. The most obvious being that it will increase your employment prospects -there is certainly no reason a language would lessen your employability.
It's also extremely helpful for applying to higher education institutions. Remember that is wasn't that long ago that some of the most prestigious universities required their applicants to have a foreign language level 2 qualification.
I disagree completely that Mandarin is the only foreign language worth learning. The UK is a part of the European trading community, so the chances are that if a foreign language is going to be used in the future, it will be a European one. The most important of these being German -the most widely spoken first language within the EU, with some 80 million speaking German as a second language- and French, which comes in just behind German for native speakers and which has the advantage of a wide geographic distribution. Note that both of the above countries are members of the G8 -the most industrialised nations in the world and therefore the most important for trade, diplomacy and other relations. Mandarin, despite its large population of speakers, in not really that useful for business.
For a non-European language, which is not based on the Latin alphabet, more useful languages would be Japanese and Arabic. Japan is also a member of the G8 and therefore making Japanese important for business, and Arabic is widely spoken across the areas of the world where there are both large oil reserves and conflict -no doubt Arabic will be an asset to energy companies and the armed forces for some time to come.
English will decline as the lingua franca over the coming years. We have already lost the influence of the empire which projected our language across the world and the USA will not remain the most dominant country in the world forever. The longer we put off catching up with the rest of the world by not introducing more effective foreign language teaching in the UK, the worse off we will be in the future.
I know for a fact that languages are useful in business. My dad, who works for GlaxoSmithKline, has over the last several years conversed in Mandarin, German, Italian, Polish, limited Hindi and is set to learn Spanish.
It's also a question of laziness and politeness when it comes to learning a language. I have spoken to German friends of mine in their native tongue and I can say that they really appreciate the effort put in to learn their language.
When I was first introduced to languages at school, I was told that a language always opens doors and never closes them, and I'd say from experience that that's true.
The best of luck with learning Mandarin. It might be a bit difficult without many native speakers around, but go for it.
Learning a language is very hard for some of us, those who learn languages easily fail to understand how hard it is and therein lies the problem. If we were buffeted with French songs, french words, french adverts all our lives then, yes maybe we could all learn French relitively easier, just like other countries seem to learn English easily because they are exposed to so much English in their lives.
English will never decline as long as America is the all powerful one. In my experience of travelling abroad, foreigners know a varying degree of English, I would say, just like the English know a varying degree of foreign languages. In France many non French speaking people use English to communicate (Scandinavians, Germans, Polish, Japanese etc. whereas many English try and speak French.
It's all down to what is the most useful language to learn, but how do you choose that? It is normally only good for one country whereas English is good in all countries.
Yes a language opens many doors and I wish I could speak another one fluently, but making many children learn a foreign language is an absolute waste of time and will open no doors due to lack of fluency.
It is a thing to do as an adult when you have the motivation or the need to do it.
Hi Young Doug
I take your point that having a second language or even a third of a fourth is a massive asset. I don't accept the European language choice argument unless you know for a fact you are going to be living or working in a specific European country or dealing with a company based in a specific European country. As I said there is no point learning French if you are going to live in Russia or indeed any other European country.
The majority of manufactured goods are made in China that is a fact. Even components of goods manufactured or more accurately assembled in European countries are manufactured in China.
Most European countries teach English as a second language rather than Mandarin because the Chinese also teach English as their second language so a French person and a Chinese can communicate in English. That same French person can communicate with a German, a Russian or a Turk through the medium of their English language skills.
China is learning fast, faster than most of us in the West realise about how and why they need to improve everything they do in terms of quality and the one advantage the Chinese have over the entire Western world is an ethic of 'natural team working'.
It used to exist in the west but it has long gone. I am also well aware that basic human rights are often subverted, if you believe everything the western media prints, but the fact remains the Chinese people are more willing to work together for the common good.
The Chinese are better than the Japanese in one respect. The Japanese took the best of the British Motorcycle Industry and stripped it down, made it better and built their own motorbike industry.
The Chinese make the Japanese look like beginners.
Sorry. This is supposed to be about language not economic empires!
I agree that it is polite if nothing else to learn enough of the language 'to do the basics' when in a foreign country but again it comes back to which language do you need to learn at school?
There is no easy answer as Britain is in a strange position. It's language is an almost universal language which like it or not is the language of the world, especially the business world and as Doug points out the current superpower, America.
For me personally it makes much more sense for English children to be taught How To Learn Any Foreign Language. This would be immensely useful for all of them in my opinion.
I am not learning Mandarin, it really isn't something I want to do. I am learning Simplified Chinese which was recommended by one of my companies suppliers who is Chinese.
If I can master Simplified Chinese he reckons it would be a massive achievement and I could use it to speak with a non-English speaking Han Chinese person and be understood.
Time will tell.
English isn't really that widespread. Within the tourist areas of some countries and in some international businesses, but a lot of locals have no more need to use English than we need to use their language. Derek, Russians do not have a high rate of literacy in English. If you went to work in Russia, you would value your French lessons because they would have prepared the mental processes necessary to converse in a foreign language.
Both of the posters immediately above are showing a level of ignorance to how valuable an asset a language is. If nothing else, gaining some competency in a language shows that you have linguistic ability, that you will be able to learn other languages, thus making you adaptable. Employers and, as mentioned, universities value this highly.
You don't necessarily need to be living in a foreign country to need to speak the language. Things such as business trips exist. Knowledge of one or more foreign languages is an asset, because if you have chosen a business language (the most common being French and German), the chances are that they will be useful at some point. It's a chore for a foreigner to converse with you in English, and many view it as a sign of laziness -a word with which Britain has synonymous.
Learning a language is not hard. If 16 year old school leavers in other European countries are able to converse in three or more languages, then so can ours. Exposure to foreign media helps, but its not crucial -my friend who learnt English as a second language has extreme difficulty understanding most English pop songs entirely, yet is able to converse in English with ease.
Also, English is in decline as the lingua franca, as are the Americans as the only superpower in the world. Power lies in oil and gas these days and the areas with large amounts of oil and gas don't even use the same writing system as English.
To the poster immediately above (at the time of writing at least), you are overestimating China's dominance. Most manufactured goods are made in China. Most of those goods are manufactured for large companies and those large companies are largely owned by members of the G8. The fact of the matter is that contact with Chinese speaking people and business is limited because most of our trading is done with the industrialised nations, hence why English is taught, not Mandarin. China is rising economically, but it will take a lot for it to surpass the EU and it has direct competition from places like Brazil and India, which are also experiencing industrialisation. That's not to say that there is contact with Chinese companies. It is becoming more commonplace, but since Chinese is only understood in one country, it wont be as widely used as other languages like Russian, Scandinavian languages, Arabic, French, German and Spanish, which are understood by several populations or are mutually intelligible with other languages.
If your argument is that your child might not use the language, then maybe you ought to consider if you're child is also going to use their knowledge of the native Americans, surds and nuclear fission as well. If you still think languages are a bad idea, then perhaps you should get your child to opt for a shiny but worthless diploma, or withdraw them from education altogether -they don't need to know a lot to work at McDonalds. Languages are as much a part of a good education as history, maths and science, and there is a lot in those subjects that wont ever be touched on again by a lot of children, but it's important for forming a basic level of education across the board.
There is an easy answer to this "conundrum". British standards of education are falling in comparison to the rest of the world. We're now bad at science, maths, English (funnily enough) and languages, in comparison to other countries with similar prosperity, GDP etc. The solution is easy -we take what's worked elsewhere and apply it here. That does mean that our children might have to actually learn something, but in the long run you won't see it as a bad thing.
English isn't really that widespread. Within the tourist areas of some countries and in some international businesses, but a lot of locals have no more need to use English than we need to use their language.
An interesting viewpoint that rather undermines the rest of your well reasoned argument.
I quite agree that the locals have no need of English so why do English locals have need of a foreign language?
I'm in the camp of teaching the children how to learn any foreign language. It seems to be the most sensible route for a country whose language is the 'language of the world' and is far more widespread than you allude to.
Hi oirish and Doug
My child, though intelligent, struggles with English.
There is no way on Gods earth he would have gained a qualification in a foreign language. Consequently I would have considered it a waste of valuable education time, if he had had to take a language.
Learning a language is hard for some of us, probably the majority. I personally could say I cannot understand why people find maths hard, it is so easy, but people do and that is because we are all different.
What is easy for one is not for another, so we should be allowed to choose. It is just very unfortunate that we need maths in our day to day lives so dropping it is not really an option. Most people never need to use another language, therefore the choice should be there to drop it at GCSE level, once they realise it is not for them.
Exactly my point. If we can equip every child with the ability and methodology of 'How To Learn' a language, any language then the majority will be able to learn a language when and if they need to.
I find much of what is taught as part of the national curriculum ultimately proves to be pointless but I also understand that getting the balance of what to teach and what not to teach is very difficult with endless government interference, target setting and goal post shifting on a whim obscuring the object of the exercise.
Oirish
That certainly makes more sense.
I have never known why they teach children about the contents of their school bag or their bedroom. They should be learning how to ask for a kilo of potatoes and a slice of ham :)
Can I just ask how you can teach anyone to be able to "learn any language"? I'm guessing that comes just after a lesson on alchemy in the timetable.
Languages are all different, have different grammatical systems, different pronouciation, different writing systems etc. At a push, you could possibly teach someone to learn about two languages within the same language group (i.e. two Slavic languages, two Romance languages) and even then not very well. I'm assuming none of you either had a good teacher or payed much attention in your language classes, because there is no single method, toolbox or process than can be applied by a child to pick up any language.
I'm not going to get involved in the "which language is best to learn" argument -there seem to be some strong opinions on both sides. The European languages are definitely the most helpful, but it's beneficial to learn any language really.
Like it or not language will be a mandatory subject at some point -it's just the way things are going. I'm not against it. The article Derek linked to seems to give some very good reasons why languages are important as a school subject. I just hope the government don't mess things up like they've already done.
Hi there
Tim Ferris, the guy who runs the site the link takes you to (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/01/20/learning-language/) has created and interesting way to learn language which involves deep immersion in the languages popular culture.
He is living proof that his methods work and work well. There is nothing stuffy and academic about them and once the method is learned he simply adapts it for the next language. He can even use it to re-activate or refresh his language skills.
He re-activated his Chinese for the trip to China he is now on using this method.
It's this proven out of the box thinking that could be adopted in our schools to improve kids education year on year but as it's not coming out of academia or government or even a quango or at the end of an expensive consultants report it's unlikely to be used in British schools.
Derek