Iversen wrote:The authors of that article also show some degree of prejudice in using the following false comparison:
Quote: "Perhaps the only difference between multilinguals and polyglots is that the latter spend their time studying languages they do not need for everyday practical purposes. In this they may be akin to amateur musicians who learn to play dozens of musical instruments. Interestingly, we do not see reports on such musicians – even though they undoubtedly exist and have valuable knowledge and expertise – because we know that the end result still lands them quite far from Yo-Yo Ma*."
I have been heavily involved with music on the amateur level in former times, and the picture of 'promiscuous' amateurs beset by instrumental Wanderlust is simply wrong. Amateurs are probably LESS likely to play many instruments than professional musicians, but the professionals have typically learnt one instrument (or activity like singing, conduction or composing) to a level of excellence where practically no amateurs can follow them. And then that's the activity they become known for. What they do at home isn't known to the public.
So why do the two authors compare con amore polyglot learners with bungling amateur musicians? Well, because it supports the idea that only monoglots can become really good at their one and only language - like mr. Ma at playing his cello. NB: I don't think the two authors support this idea to its full - and totally unfounded - extent, otherwise they wouldn't write so much about bilingualism. But they clearly support the weaker version of it where you have blind faith in people who learnt their languages because they live in a multilingual society, but no faith at all in those who choose themselves which languages to learn (and how many).
Language enthusiasts and professionals love metaphors. The musical instrument comparison was especially bad because, unlike a musical instrument, "language is the only thing worth knowing even poorly".
*Yo-Yo Ma is a Chinese-American cellist.
