Le Baron wrote:LupCenușiu wrote:Le Baron wrote:There might not be any conclusive arguments to be made showing that more languages (even at a lower level of achievement) enables more satisfactory experiences than one or two pursued to a high level of development. Or vice-versa.
Difficulty in establishing a coherent system to quantify the level of satisfaction in personal experiences? Color me surprised...
Not exactly that. The very point of the thread for me is that gaining a stronger command over a language (or two) is actually a position of great satisfaction with regard to the access it provides, but that it requires a level of devotion and time that might not be possible when one spreads one's time and effort more thinly among many languages. This is not some foggy, inconclusive outcome, but something rather clear. The lack of clarity is when people start to possibly rationalise and revise 'satisfaction' and 'goals' to meet desires and time already spent.
What colour is surprised?
White. That should cover the entire spectrum. You get satisfaction from investing a certain amount of energy in a narrow field, with the declared intention to advance further. Some other people tackle a larger field, with less advancement. To begin with, you can compare the declared time invested...and not much else. Intensity of study, methods, personal skills and experience, and other factors can vary greatly. That's for resources spent. For outcome... that's a conversation for a long night around a fire. Nights, even. Every term can be debated, and while at some basic level is easier to agree what strong command over a language is, devil hides in the details. Some are not interested in production skills. Some not even in listening. Or just in listening. Tests can offer a frame for comparison, but again, some don't care for tests at all. You say the process of post-factum rationalization is meant to adjust relative to time and energy already spent. I'm sure this is the case for some. Not for all probably.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to apply your own system of reference for satisfaction to others? Because, that will work only so far. I see your point, you made a solid case for it. And then are people like leosmith, that likes to advance a language pretty far, but already has a decent number of languages under the belt. And then we have Iversen with dozens of languages and great level in many. And then we change the register again, and see people very happy with one or two languages at advanced level, or dabbling in dozens out of curiosity.
To reiterate, I believe the
conclusive arguments for few vs many languages and satisfaction you can get from using either approach are some sort of unicorns. You know you won't get them.