How long do bloggers think lockdowns last?

[Purangi]

It should be absolutely automatic, that monolinguals without at least B1 or B2 in a foreign language shouldn't be ever accepted to universities. Anyone able to get a degree but "unable" to learn a language is just a lazy and entitled brat

Any chance you would “grant” an exception for someone like Stephen Hawking?

[Cavesa]

It should be absolutely automatic, that monolinguals without at least B1 or B2 in a foreign language shouldn't be ever accepted to universities. Anyone able to get a degree but "unable" to learn a language is just a lazy and entitled brat

Any chance you would “grant” an exception for someone like Stephen Hawking?

Any chance someone like Stephen Hawking would be unable to learn a language?

[jmar257]

It's not that hard to at least get rid of some of the obstacles. For example outlawing the geoblocking would be a step in the right direction, that's for the exposure. Making a language exam obligatory at the end of HS or before entering the university is not that hard either.

No argument on the geoblocking, although I don't know in practice how much that'd change. And would such an exam actually test proficiency or be another thing people cram for and pass and retain nothing? Maybe I'm too pessimistic

Yes, I totally agree that the conscious effort is important and is much harder for the learners of anything else than English, even in the US. You have dominated the entertainment industry so much, that even a European learning German outside of a German speaking countries struggles. Yet, they often learn nonetheless.

Fair, I'd argue that the payoff would be clearer for a European learning German, but I suppose Spanish would be our analogue of a language that's close by and somewhat prevalent (depending on your area of the country). The output of American (and Anglophone) media probably dwarfs that of most (all?) other languages, so the net benefit of what you're getting vs. what you have is comparably smaller for that American. At the end of the day it all comes back to why you're learning the language, and if that's a strong enough reason to put in the work (especially as this hypothetical person who doesn't like studying languages like we do).

Which means also improving the education of the voters and to everybody ever likely to get to power. If a part of the americans think that Africa is a country, cannot name more than two or three european countries, and can't even pinpoint where on the map you're actually sending your army, that's a problem. And if you want to stay on top of economy and technology even with lower immigration due to law changes, covid, and other such stuff, it just means the americans need to work harder too. Including improvement of the foreign languages.

No argument here, I'd be happy if people just read more books for a change, much less work on learning languages. But the education system is a whole other ordeal to get into, and I have some opinions on it (especially higher ed) but I'm not sure how tangential we need to be getting.

If you want to go that way, do you know where does Lorraine lie in France? Bayern In Germany? Those are the equivalents of Idaho, even if they have fewer km2. Most europeans at least know Idaho exists. Do most american know Lorraine/Bayern exist?That's what the americans often seem to not understand. Idaho or the New York state are never internationaly important. Countries are the basic unit of our world's structure, and at least the major ones, or those with lots of ties to yours, should be known by the general public.

My point was not that we know Europe better than you guys know America, just that there's a similar level of ignorance about places halfway across the world that happen to not be (as) relevant. And I'd argue most Americans know a little about the major European countries--maybe not enough, but not total ignorance. And I'll admit I don't know where either of those is, although I've heard of both...I think Bayern has a soccer team?

Yes, growing up speaking the lingua franca is giving you less of motivation, but perhaps people should be pushed out of ignorance.

I mean, if we want to start talking about standards of what people should do, it's inexcusable your average guy can't do a few pull ups or bench 225lbs or your average person knows jack about personal finance. I have my wish list about the world as well...

It should be absolutely automatic, that monolinguals without at least B1 or B2 in a foreign language shouldn't be ever accepted to universities (not only in the US, I'd definitely find this useful all over Europe too, perhaps two languages should be demanded here), that's a good example. Anyone able to get a degree but "unable" to learn a language is just a lazy and entitled brat, it's that simple.

I agree in that I think your average college grad is capable of learning a language. But I think this gets into the question of what is college for? If I could wave my wand and make college more about the pursuit of knowledge rather than a job training program, I'd be cool with that, but that'd mean we'd have to improve high schools. Frankly, plenty of office jobs don't need 4 years of higher ed and I think a lot of the general education courses are a waste of time (as far as how they're currently executed in America), but this is another conversation.

So, if Duo is promoting language learning, it is not a bad thing. The problem is, that it has changed and goes directly against the initial values. It's making people fail, it is limiting their idea of what language learning actually is. It has brought some of the worst mistakes of the classroom learning (such as very slow curriculums) to the internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't prefer that Duo didn't exist, the issue IMO is more with how regular people view it and that their typical language experience is learning nothing in school growing up. But hard work is never an easy sell--look at the various fitness fads over the years.

[Cavesa]

It's not that hard to at least get rid of some of the obstacles. For example outlawing the geoblocking would be a step in the right direction, that's for the exposure. Making a language exam obligatory at the end of HS or before entering the university is not that hard either.

No argument on the geoblocking, although I don't know in practice how much that'd change. And would such an exam actually test proficiency or be another thing people cram for and pass and retain nothing? Maybe I'm too pessimistic

That depends on the exam. You cannot just cram and retain nothing, if you take DELF, FCE, DELE, and similar exams. They are not about just regurgitating a list of words or something. Of course you can forget the language, just like you can forget high school maths. But that might bring us to the nihilism, that any kind of education is actually worthless in the long run

Yes, I totally agree that the conscious effort is important and is much harder for the learners of anything else than English, even in the US. You have dominated the entertainment industry so much, that even a European learning German outside of a German speaking countries struggles. Yet, they often learn nonetheless.

Fair, I'd argue that the payoff would be clearer for a European learning German, but I suppose Spanish would be our analogue of a language that's close by and somewhat prevalent (depending on your area of the country). The output of American (and Anglophone) media probably dwarfs that of most (all?) other languages, so the net benefit of what you're getting vs. what you have is comparably smaller for that American. At the end of the day it all comes back to why you're learning the language, and if that's a strong enough reason to put in the work (especially as this hypothetical person who doesn't like studying languages like we do).

It might be dwarving the other languages, but many still offer much more than you could consume in ten lifetimes. For example looking at the Spanish popular culture as "dwarved" by the US production might be technically correct, but still absolutely ridiculous. A bigger problem is the marketing issue. The production of the other countries, even though very often of the same or better quality in some segments, simply doesn't get the attention it deserves. A bit of PR could do miracles.

If you want to go that way, do you know where does Lorraine lie in France? Bayern In Germany? Those are the equivalents of Idaho, even if they have fewer km2. Most europeans at least know Idaho exists. Do most american know Lorraine/Bayern exist?That's what the americans often seem to not understand. Idaho or the New York state are never internationaly important. Countries are the basic unit of our world's structure, and at least the major ones, or those with lots of ties to yours, should be known by the general public.

My point was not that we know Europe better than you guys know America, just that there's a similar level of ignorance about places halfway across the world that happen to not be (as) relevant. And I'd argue most Americans know a little about the major European countries--maybe not enough, but not total ignorance. And I'll admit I don't know where either of those is, although I've heard of both...I think Bayern has a soccer team?

No, I don't think there is a similar level of ignorance. From what I heard, you can avoid a lot of stuff from history and geography in the US highschools. They are in general much worse than the european ones, with the system counting on the universities to make the kids catch up and later outrun the rest of the world (or at least a very visible minority will totally outrun the rest of us, we don't hear much about universities that are not Ivy, so who knows). But the people not going to a college or specialising in something can easily end up without basic knowledge about the outside world. More focus on language learning would be a great invitation to be more interested at least in a part of the outside world, or to at least much more awareness that the other countries exist.

Yes, growing up speaking the lingua franca is giving you less of motivation, but perhaps people should be pushed out of ignorance.

I mean, if we want to start talking about standards of what people should do, it's inexcusable your average guy can't do a few pull ups or bench 225lbs or your average person knows jack about personal finance. I have my wish list about the world as well...

How much you can bench usually doesn't affect how you vote. What languages you speak does. That's why many countries are well aware of this soft power and support cultural and language learning promotion worldwide.

It should be absolutely automatic, that monolinguals without at least B1 or B2 in a foreign language shouldn't be ever accepted to universities (not only in the US, I'd definitely find this useful all over Europe too, perhaps two languages should be demanded here), that's a good example. Anyone able to get a degree but "unable" to learn a language is just a lazy and entitled brat, it's that simple.

I agree in that I think your average college grad is capable of learning a language. But I think this gets into the question of what is college for? If I could wave my wand and make college more about the pursuit of knowledge rather than a job training program, I'd be cool with that, but that'd mean we'd have to improve high schools. Frankly, plenty of office jobs don't need 4 years of higher ed and I think a lot of the general education courses are a waste of time (as far as how they're currently executed in America), but this is another conversation.

I definitely agree. It should not be just a job training program. And yes, the highschools (not only in the US definitely) need improvements too. This is one of the horrible consequences of some very nice sounding ideas. The US may be more used to all this, but we see it in Europe as a recent trend. More people go to universities, more places are being opened (and accept even students who would have definitely be too dumb to study a few decades ago), more people finish and push the highschoolers out of the jobs, making the degree a new standard and gradually lowering the quality of the whole education system. The highschools accept more people and demand less as a consequence too. Really, the languages are just one of the symptoms. But it's true that if we accept that even people with IQ 100 can get a degree, going to class twice a week, with lots of free time for a normal half time job and fun, we cannot expect much from them. The "job training" is the best they can do.

So, if Duo is promoting language learning, it is not a bad thing. The problem is, that it has changed and goes directly against the initial values. It's making people fail, it is limiting their idea of what language learning actually is. It has brought some of the worst mistakes of the classroom learning (such as very slow curriculums) to the internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't prefer that Duo didn't exist, the issue IMO is more with how regular people view it and that their typical language experience is learning nothing in school growing up. But hard work is never an easy sell--look at the various fitness fads over the years.

Yes, Duo did good things too. It is just sad that it changed the direction so much. It had so much potential!
Fads are everywhere, that's true. But it is just sad to see the language learning internet attacked so much by the Duo and RS marketing, while much better (and right now more modern and better quality) tools get very little attention.

[chove]

Yes, growing up speaking the lingua franca is giving you less of motivation, but perhaps people should be pushed out of ignorance. It should be absolutely automatic, that monolinguals without at least B1 or B2 in a foreign language shouldn't be ever accepted to universities (not only in the US, I'd definitely find this useful all over Europe too, perhaps two languages should be demanded here), that's a good example. Anyone able to get a degree but "unable" to learn a language is just a lazy and entitled brat, it's that simple.

Ouch!

I did need a language at Standard Grade (O-Level) for my first degree, but most of the subjects I took to final-years-of-school level were the sciences because I wanted to be a physicist. With a choice of at most five subjects there's other things that you might need for a specific degree course. *Ideally* we'd all be able to take a language to the end of high school, but that's not always possible. And then we get to university and focus on one or two subjects.

I'm now doing Spanish and German, but the university I study those with has no entry requirements for students (the UK's Open University), and I would never have started on Spanish if I didn't need to do two languages for this degree (from a choice of FIGS). I didn't even have much interest in languages until I was about 30. I never really needed another language, which is... well, I've been thinking lately that there's nothing inherently wrong with being monolingual as long as you can get by without additional languages. You'll be missing out on some things but depending where you live and what you speak as your one language you might never have any need for others, and even children don't pick up languages they don't think they need.

I know we have some teachers on the forum, I'd be interested in what they think of putting more language on the curriculum. I always thought every teacher wanted more of their own subject, thinking back to history teachers lamenting that nobody knew how to structure an essay, or chemistry teachers despairing of us ever appreciating the scientific method.

So not cognitively unable, but what about socio-economically?

[jmar257]

That depends on the exam. You cannot just cram and retain nothing, if you take DELF, FCE, DELE, and similar exams. They are not about just regurgitating a list of words or something. Of course you can forget the language, just like you can forget high school maths. But that might bring us to the nihilism, that any kind of education is actually worthless in the long run

As I was typing that I was thinking it'd have to be something like CEFR tests (which I have no personal experience with, but have to be harder than some stuff in American high schools).

It might be dwarving the other languages, but many still offer much more than you could consume in ten lifetimes. For example looking at the Spanish popular culture as "dwarved" by the US production might be technically correct, but still absolutely ridiculous. A bigger problem is the marketing issue. The production of the other countries, even though very often of the same or better quality in some segments, simply doesn't get the attention it deserves. A bit of PR could do miracles.

It's much harder to want ten more lifetimes of media when you have a hundred for $10 a month or whatever Netflix charges. PR wouldn't hurt, but you have to move people away from just watching with subs/dubs.

No, I don't think there is a similar level of ignorance. From what I heard, you can avoid a lot of stuff from history and geography in the US highschools.

What have you heard? I mean, yes, you can cheat your way through and take easy classes (you'll still take some history), do Europeans not have people who skate through classes? At least from my experience I was able to take history classes. I wish I would've taken AP European history in HS and would've liked to take history classes in college, but I was busy with other classes. But it's not like I didn't take history at all. And that's something that's easy enough to read about on your own later, if you have the desire.

How much you can bench usually doesn't affect how you vote. What languages you speak does. That's why many countries are well aware of this soft power and support cultural and language learning promotion worldwide.

There have been studies associated upper body strength with right wing views But I was talking less about voting and more in general. I wish more people would read, learn languages, and get stronger, but we don't live in my dream world. It'd be nice if everyone had to get to B1 by turning 18.

I definitely agree. It should not be just a job training program. And yes, the highschools (not only in the US definitely) need improvements too. This is one of the horrible consequences of some very nice sounding ideas. The US may be more used to all this, but we see it in Europe as a recent trend. More people go to universities, more places are being opened (and accept even students who would have definitely be too dumb to study a few decades ago), more people finish and push the highschoolers out of the jobs, making the degree a new standard and gradually lowering the quality of the whole education system. The highschools accept more people and demand less as a consequence too. Really, the languages are just one of the symptoms. But it's true that if we accept that even people with IQ 100 can get a degree, going to class twice a week, with lots of free time for a normal half time job and fun, we cannot expect much from them. The "job training" is the best they can do.

Yeah, this is something I don't like myself...companies essentially forcing you to pay for your own job training in the form of college, and high schools leave you totally unprepared for actual white collar work (nothing wrong with blue collar, if anything at this juncture it's a great choice in some cases).

Yes, Duo did good things too. It is just sad that it changed the direction so much. It had so much potential!
Fads are everywhere, that's true. But it is just sad to see the language learning internet attacked so much by the Duo and RS marketing, while much better (and right now more modern and better quality) tools get very little attention.

Agree, seeing Duolingo memes for months on Reddit was so annoying. They warranted a chuckle at first...the millionth time, not so much. And they flood communities with beginners asking stupid questions...ugh, goes back to what I was complaining about early in this thread.

[JLS]

...I am not that sure how much true is the "the americans wouldn't learn otherwise" argument. Or rather, wouldn't it be better, if the lazy ones didn't learn and stopped motivating the market to produce low quality resources?

How to make the americans learn like everybody else? Start demanding it from it. Obligatory B1ish high school leaving exam like in most countries, employers expecting people to know at least one foreign language to a level appropriate for the job, and so on. That's the key difference. Most people in other countries are just motivated to learn in any way available, because their quality of life is much more affected. If the americans get before the choice "stay poor and uneducated, or treat languages like an important subject too", they'll start learning en mass too.

Most Americans have no practical use for learning a language in an economic sense. Their jobs do not depend on having a second language nor will their job prospects be measurably improved or diminished domestically by learning a foreign language. We are fortunate (unfortunate) in having our language be the defacto international language already. I can make an analogy between Europe and America, as an American who has lived and traveled extensively there. The Czech Republic is located in Central Europe and it's size would be roughly comparable to Mississippi in the US. When a Czech travels outside of their country, they run into other languages immediately- German, the closely related Slovak, and the less closely related Polish. Going farther away from the bordering nations one encounters Hungarian; Croatian; Italian; French; etc. All of these are within driving distance and passport-free travel.

When an American who lives in Mississippi wants to enjoy a vacation at the beach, they can stay within their own state and drive to the Gulf Coast. The language and culture stay the same. When a Czech wants to enjoy a beach holiday, they go to the Adriatic or the Mediterranean where there will be several languages and cultures.

If a Czech wants to seek better job opportunities within the EU, they will have to learn another language... or two. If a Mississippian wants better job opportunities in the US, they do not have to learn another language.

Americans are this way, not because they're lazy , but because most have no practical use for a second language in work or travel or to consume media. Americans will not have a lower quality of life or be poorer because they do not know a second language. My brother-in-law, a monolingual, makes a lot more money than I do and he doesn't have an objectively lower quality of life than I do, or the rest of my family. Maybe if we didn't have our own quality media, if almost all films, popular music and television came from say, Norway and they were all subtitled in English... if we were exposed to Norwegian from birth every time we turned on the TV, went to the cinema, or turned on the car radio or streamed music... we'd probably be good at comprehending Norwegian.

An American, like myself, learns a second language for their own reasons which mostly are not economic or quality of life issues. I could life my life perfectly well here without knowing Spanish, Portuguese, Creoles or Ladino or Catalan. If I were living in a nation in mainland Europe, I would be much more limited as a monolingual. This doesn't mean that Americans don't want to learn a second language anyway, many have this desire but don't know how to go about it or what to do with what they've learned. They are also hampered by attempting to use their poorly acquired language with native-speakers who then respond in English, giving them credence to the belief that "everyone speaks English", even though we know it's not true. Imagine if after learning French, English, Spanish, Italian or German that every time you spoke it while you were traveling, that most people would respond to you in Czech. Imagine how demotivated you would be in learning if, in order to be spoken to in a second language, you had to prove your command of the language every time in order not to be spoken to in your native language. I know you have had your struggles in France as an immigrant even with C2 French, but if someone switches to English with you, you at least have the option of pretending not to speak it.

So, Americans do not need a second language to live a good life. If they do make the effort to learn one most do not have an easy and practical way to use what they have learned without traveling far away. If they do want to use their second language in large European cities, they're likely to be responded to in English anyway. This doesn't spark a lot of enthusiasm for learning.

...The Duo or RS would be great as the gateway for the new learners, if they were very clear about the goals "this is a beginner's course, the point is to finish and move on". But that's not what they're doing.

From an American marketing perspective, selling to the masses, this would unnecessarily diminish a company's profit returns. People want an easy solution to complex problems. Most do not want to have to work too hard. RS and Duo give people that false sense of accomplishment for significantly less effort. Learning a second language is hard for a monolingual from an area where their exposure to, and use for, other languages in their life is minimal. People have the desire to learn a second language but soon run up against the reality of what it takes to learn a language... which is why used language courses for English-speakers are almost always in great condition... especially after the first 10 lessons. Giving people a dumbed-down learning system may not be what they need to really learn a second language but it can give them an easy to gain confidence that they are "learning"... at least something.

If the RS ad was "Hey, buy this and you'll learn some words and phrases in language X in an easy and fun way, but you'll still need to go through years of learning with grammar work, reading, writing, listening, speaking!" They wouldn't sell very much. Selling the illusion of learning is a better marketing ploy than selling the reality of learning a language. I have the same argument with Pimsleur. Their marketing hype is selling the same illusion. To me, it's useful along with a more thorough course. People who buy it thinking it will, on its own, teach them the language to a high level are headed for disappointment. People who think any course will do this for them are wrong too. It's a good start. It's why we all end up cobbling together a multitude of resources over time in order to successfully learn a language.

I know that this may come off looking as if I am defending not learning languages. I'm just stating why things are the way they are in my country. I guess sometimes, I just get tired of Europeans criticizing Americans for not being more adept at languages as they themselves are. There are reasons for this, and most of them are not laziness or arrogance.

Quite true. Whether I learn no languages, or I learn 20, it doesn't do much for my job opportunities. At least not locally or in many places of the US.

My biggest problem being a language lover in America: Who do I practice with? That's a bit more challenging than in other places. I can travel 1,000 kilometers in any direction and get by with English.

Not much motivation, except what is intrinsic and born out of a love for the subject matter.

[rdearman]

Before I wish governments would spend money on teaching Americans a second language, or Europeans where Idaho is, I think it would be money well spent getting rid of illiteracy which was 878 million in 1990. In addition, I agree with iguanamon that people learn or do the things which are most beneficial to themselves.

I would also like to add that European geography isn't really that great. Most French people I have spoken to seem to think London starts a couple of metres outside Brighton and ends near the Scottish border.

Whether I learn no languages, or I learn 20, it doesn't do much for my job opportunities.

Same in the UK, nobody every asks if I speak another language. The only time I was asked was when I applied for a job in France, and even they weren't that bothered English was more important. (This is probably more because of my profession)

Also I think nobody should be allowed to graduate high-school without having a working knowledge of Deferential and Integral Calculus. You all have self-selected to learn other languages, and therefore think everyone should know them. But others feel the same about maths, carpentry, plumbing, etc.

[jmar257]

Also I think nobody should be allowed to graduate high-school without having a working knowledge of Deferential and Integral Calculus. You all have self-selected to learn other languages, and therefore think everyone should know them. But others feel the same about maths, carpentry, plumbing, etc.

I'd argue stats is more important than calculus, and should be mandatory before graduating. And DIY stuff wouldn't be bad...I wish I had time in high school to take some of the trade classes they offered. Would've been more useful than English (but I am the type to read a lot anyway).

[Migla]

I remember from the old HTLAL that many, many people had had bad experiences with learning a foreign language in school. I see the same thing around me. I see kids, who have lived in our country since forever, had local language taught as a second language from grade 1, have even had quite a few classes taught bilingually. And still there is a significant % of these kids who are far from fluent when they leave school. Heck, their English is often better than the local language when they leave the school! And guess what, I don't blame the kids.

I blame two things: the "bubble" and, of course, the teaching methods. It's especially true for people living in those big language bubbles - exemplified by the net terms such as anglosphere, rusosphere etc. If all the information, entertainment and socializing you need is available in a language that feels comfortable to you, the amount of willpower needed to seek out ways to use a foreign language outside the classroom is immense. I know I don't do that. But I strongly believe, that we only truly learn languages outside the classroom. Through getting information, entertainment and socializing in that language.

Classroom teaching has its uses (guess what, I'm a teacher) but it also has limitations. And learning a language is a slow, slow process, no matter what the authors of books such as "Learn Hindi in 10 days" want us to believe. I mean, language schools everywhere have their A1 Italian classes full, but even B1 Italian classes become hard to find, let alone C1. Because they do not give people what people expected to find there, and students drop out = no groups.

As long as we don't figure out ways to make language learning engaging and entertaining, mandatory language classes will accomplish near to nothing. The only language school taught me is English, and even then thanks to TV programs and books in English, or, as I see in kids these days, gaming. Some of them can't put a grammatically correct sentence together, but know fancy terminology from what ever games they like. For me, 3 years of German classes in school was a waste, same as two years of Arabic in uni. This forum here is full of outliers, people who have had the motivation to actually succeed. I admire you guys for that!

I have attempted to learn over 10 different languages over the years. The only two I have succeeded to learn are English (thanks to Anglosphere bubble I as a small language native chose to join for my information, entertainment and socializing needs) and Chinese (thanks to studying abroad). That's it.

I don't really know what I wanted to say with this post. Maybe just rant a bit. Anyways, here's an article on Estonian schools I was reading recently and quite liked:
https://en.rebaltica.lv/2019/02/the-estonian-experiment-how-tallinn-deals-with-its-russian-schools/