Romance languages and switching to English

[Cavesa]

Cavesa, it seems to me that you are confusing the notions of reward and punishment.

Broadly speaking, rewards are accorded in recognition of performance against certain criteria. This is the “carrot” approach to encouraging good behaviour, as judged by those who govern a given system. The person or organisation having the power to set the goals to be achieved, the standards of performance, and the means of distributing the awards, is obviously in an advantageous position with respect to anyone seeking the proffered rewards. However, in a system of "rewards for performance", there is no coercion involved. Individuals are free to decide whether they wish to participate the process and, in so doing, to attempt to measure up to the standards and thereby receive the rewards. They are also free to decide to not participate in the process and thereby forego the opportunity of receiving a reward. Whether rewards are distributed for learning a lingua franca or for proving one’s professional competence in medicine or any other field of human endeavour, the “gate keepers” set the standards and either distribute or withhold the associate rewards. The withholding of rewards for failure to perform or for failure to participate is not punishment, it is merely a recognition that the required level of performance has not been achieved. Many are called, but few are chosen.

In my experience, employers establish specifications for products and services, which includes manpower, that they purchase so as to assist them in achieving their organisational goals. They will tend to decline offers of products and services that do not meet their standards, as doing otherwise would hamper their operational success. This is not punishment, it is merely sound operational management. If some employers decide that an advanced competence in English is a requirement for a specific position within their organisation, it is only natural that they view applicants meeting this requirement in a more positive light than those who do not. Awarding the coveted position to one candidate is a “reward” for their having met the criteria, it is NOT a “punishing” of the candidate who does not meet the requirement. To make such an argument is to suggest that an organisation requiring aluminium in its manufacturing process is “punishing” steel producers by not buying their product!

Your equating of the economic inducement to learn English with the imposition of learning Russian is, forgive me, simply beyond the pale.

EDITED:
Furiously typing away!

The bolded part is the problem. You have no clue what it is like for non anglophones. Your experience doesn't apply here at all. What you say is true about many other skills. It is true about anglophones and languages.

It is not true on a market, where English got out of hand, and became a requirement even for jobs where it is not needed. That is the problem. It is not about operational success. It is not about some employers. It is about masses of HR people deciding this, it is about people who got refused for a job they were perfectly qualified for just because of English, which was not necessary for the job. These testimonies are more and more common. That is punishment, not optimalisation, not stupidity of the applicant wanting a job where he is unlikely to ever talk to anyone at all or need foreign literature, and instead needs other skills.

I am not equating it, you might need to reread that post. There is a surprising amount of people who equate it in this country. I find it incredibly stupid to equate it, but the amount of those people who do is definitely not ignorable.

I think you illustrate my point more and more. Natives of romance languages don't expect people to get advanced in their languages, even to a too big extent. Natives of English are extremely naive about ESL.

[William Camden]

In the history of the development of lingua francas, the operating inducement to adopt them has been the procurement of some advantage. Economic advantage was the inducement to learn English and it reamains the only inducement. This is a carrot, it is not a stick.

In some rare instances, coercion has been used as an operating inducement; for example, the arrival of armoured divisions. This is a stick. The only advantage procured is the avoidance of severe punishment. Once the coercion ceases, many peoples reject the language that was imposed upon them, as there is no real inducement to continue.

Cavesa, given the history of your country during the 20th century, I am absolutely astonished that you should conflate the economic inducement to learn one languge with the political requirement to learn another.

PS: The above is not a political discussion, it is a commentary on how lingua franca develop and the inducements to adopt them.

No, I think you don't understand the simple thing that the carrot became the stick. Twenty or perhaps even ten years ago, it was the carrot. You learnt English, you got a better paying job. Now, English has become the expected standard. You don't learn English, you get a horrible job with low pay. That is the stick.

Economic punishment is a huge stick. It is similar to university degrees. Those used to be the pathway to above average income, there was the carrot. Nowadays, they are so common that not having any comes with the stick-jobs with well bellow average salary. That is the stick. I am not continuing the degree I hate because of some carrot, there is actually none at the end of this degree. But if I end without finishing, the more considering my age, I will be at a huge disadvantage for the rest of my life, even when compared with people who went for hypereasy paid degrees. That is the stick. It is the same thing as with English or another skill that used to be exclusive and now became the standard.

Given the history of my country during the 20th century, I can assure you many people in this country see little difference in what language is being imposed on them. While you and I make a clear distinction between the language of occupants and language of economy, it is extremely common to hear "we just exchanged Russian for English". This is a real quote. For many people, there is little difference in what reasons are making the schools force a particular language on them. It is sad, it reflects on a part of this nation being very stupid, but it is the reality.

I agree this is not a political discussion. It is about the huge differences between the romance language natives' and English language natives' perception of learners. The natives of romance languages simply resigned on using the stick completely, and grow their carrots hidden in their garden, instead of showing them in a store with lots of advertisements.

My own experience of former East Germans in the 1990s was that they did not speak Russian, even though it had been an obligatory school subject (of course, having obligatory school lessons on an L2 and actually being able to speak the L2 are two entirely different things). But English was somewhat frowned on in the GDR education system, though not banned, so East Germans, unlike West Germans, tended not to speak English. I remember doing some German-English interpreting for an East German. This was generally rather redundant for West Germans as they tended to have a decent grasp of English, indeed when I was studying German in West Germany in the 1980s, it was sometimes difficult to get them to speak German to me rather than English.

[Speakeasy]

... In my experience, employers establish specifications for products and services, which includes manpower, that they purchase so as to assist them in achieving their organisational goals. They will tend to decline offers of products and services that do not meet their standards, as doing otherwise would hamper their operational success.

The bolded part is the problem...

It makes absolutely no difference which regime is in place. I recall, as a boy, overhearing my elders say “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” as a cynical recognition that “the boss makes the rules” and that the rest of us simply have to learn to live with the situation. Of course, I didn’t understand it at the time, but I eventually figured it out.

... You have no clue what it is like for non anglophones ... I think you illustrate my point more and more... Natives of English are extremely naive about ESL

I decline to interpret this as either a personal attack or as the blanket rejection of my linguistic group as being intolerant and disconnected from the rest of the world. Rather, I understand this to be the impassioned expression of a deep level of frustration over a situation that is beyond your control. I understand that having to come to grips with the notion that “life is unfair” is of absolutely no consolation whatsoever. I always hated hearing this adage as it is often used to minimize the suffering of those who are genuinely unfairly treated. Nevetheless, it is one of life's bitter truths.

... I am not equating it, you might need to reread that post. There is a surprising amount of people who equate it in this country. I find it incredibly stupid to equate it, but the amount of those people who do is definitely not ignorable...

It is highly regrettable that many people are choosing to replace historical fact with the comforting mythology that they are hapless victims. Come to me, I understand you, I feel your pain, I am your salvation!

[zatris]

Cavesa, it seems to me that you are confusing the notions of reward and punishment.

Broadly speaking, rewards are accorded in recognition of performance against certain criteria. This is the “carrot” approach to encouraging good behaviour, as judged by those who govern a given system. The person or organisation having the power to set the goals to be achieved, the standards of performance, and the means of distributing the awards, is obviously in an advantageous position with respect to anyone seeking the proffered rewards. However, in a system of "rewards for performance", there is no coercion involved. Individuals are free to decide whether they wish to participate the process and, in so doing, to attempt to measure up to the standards and thereby receive the rewards. They are also free to decide to not participate in the process and thereby forego the opportunity of receiving a reward. Whether rewards are distributed for learning a lingua franca or for proving one’s professional competence in medicine or any other field of human endeavour, the “gate keepers” set the standards and either distribute or withhold the associate rewards. The withholding of rewards for failure to perform or for failure to participate is not punishment, it is merely a recognition that the required level of performance has not been achieved. Many are called, but few are chosen.

In my experience, employers establish specifications for products and services, which includes manpower, that they purchase so as to assist them in achieving their organisational goals. They will tend to decline offers of products and services that do not meet their standards, as doing otherwise would hamper their operational success. This is not punishment, it is merely sound operational management. If some employers decide that an advanced competence in English is a requirement for a specific position within their organisation, it is only natural that they view applicants meeting this requirement in a more positive light than those who do not. Awarding the coveted position to one candidate is a “reward” for their having met the criteria, it is NOT a “punishing” of the candidate who does not meet the requirement. To make such an argument is to suggest that an organisation requiring aluminium in its manufacturing process is “punishing” steel producers by not buying their product!

Your equating of the economic inducement to learn English with the imposition of learning Russian is, forgive me, simply beyond the pale.

EDITED:
Furiously typing away!

The bolded part is the problem. You have no clue what it is like for non anglophones. Your experience doesn't apply here at all. What you say is true about many other skills. It is true about anglophones and languages.

It is not true on a market, where English got out of hand, and became a requirement even for jobs where it is not needed. That is the problem. It is not about operational success. It is not about some employers. It is about masses of HR people deciding this, it is about people who got refused for a job they were perfectly qualified for just because of English, which was not necessary for the job. These testimonies are more and more common. That is punishment, not optimalisation, not stupidity of the applicant wanting a job where he is unlikely to ever talk to anyone at all or need foreign literature, and instead needs other skills.

I am not equating it, you might need to reread that post. There is a surprising amount of people who equate it in this country. I find it incredibly stupid to equate it, but the amount of those people who do is definitely not ignorable.

I think you illustrate my point more and more. Natives of romance languages don't expect people to get advanced in their languages, even to a too big extent. Natives of English are extremely naive about ESL.

What Cavesa says is not that far from the argument put forth by Ivan Illich in his book Deschooling Society. If I'm not mistaken, one of his points was that ever growing institutionalized education by its own nature brings some unforeseen consequences, among them increasing difficulty to get a job. As more and more people are schooled to higher degrees than past generations, those offering jobs start to demand more and more schooling from interested candidates, not because it's needed, but as a means to filter applicants, otherwise it would be necessary to interview thousands people for every position offered, which isn't practical. English education in non-Anglophone countries has followed a similar path.

So really, both Speakeasy and Cavesa are right to some degree: to a certain extent it actually is a question of operational optimisation ("hey, we need to hire fifteen people for x job, which doesn't require a lot of skills, but let's demand B2 English, otherwise the number of candidates will be too big to handle"), but one might say that's unfair and punishing of people who could do the job perfectly well, but unfortunately haven't had the opportunity and/or willingness to learn English to the level required, especially when you consider that, yes, command of the language is absolutely superfluous to that particular job. I see no way out of that situation, however, except coming to terms with it and trying to obtain the skills demanded, even if of no actual use. But the frustration is understandable.

(I'm not trying to get political in any way, nor I want to enter into discussions about the book or its author. I only mention it because some things Cavesa said bear some resemblance to the ideas presented in it. I should also note that agreeing with his diagnosis of a problem doesn't necessarily entail accepting his proposed solution. Anyway, if my post is considered political or in infrigement of the rules, I'll happily erase it.)

[shandra]

those offering jobs start to demand more and more schooling from interested candidates, not because it's needed, but as a means to filter applicants [...] ("hey, we need to hire fifteen people for x job, which doesn't require a lot of skills, but let's demand B2 English, otherwise the number of candidates will be too big to handle") [...] consider that, yes, command of the language is absolutely superfluous to that particular job.

This is the current situation of Italian job market.

[Tristano]

Urgh I think we are taking things a bit too seriously.
I wasn't serious about speaking French or German in Europe. Who cares about lingua francas.

I don't know you guys, but I came in the Netherlands as an expat and then settled down.
- as an expat working for an international company I was expected to leave soon. I was having only international acquaintances. I had very few opportunity to speak Dutch and every attempt was dismissed.
- as a man settled down with a Dutch woman working for Dutch companies and future Dutch citizen, I'm required to speak Dutch in every interaction. All my acquaintances are Dutch. Everything happens in Dutch. Sometimes I switch to English and people reply in Dutch.

Dutch people speak Dutch and want to speak Dutch. French people speak French and want to speak French. English is a lingua franca and not more than that. Movies, music and videogames are cool. America produces lots of cool stuff. But we do think, live and dream in our local languages.

[BalancingAct]

Frankly, French output with poor pronunciation and a thick accent is not easy to bear.

Spanish is a much more phonetic language and there is less chance to get the sounds and intonation wrong.

Italian is in the middle but also need more care in order to sound right and pleasant.

You can't blame people who don't want to hear unpleasant sounds.

If you sound right, even if you are actually a beginner or false beginner, the French native you are addressing to would talk to you in French without thinking, pouring out a stream of words taking you as one of the them even though you clearly look different.

That's my experience anyway.

My problem with the French occurs online not in real life. They are quick to assume that I am from some backward corner not knowing much of anything and act impertinently. When realized I am better informed, better traveled, and better versed in various topics than them, they either make me talk about pollution in China, as that's the thing they remember from their news about China and they can feel superior about (imagine insisting on talking about the Mafia and nothing else when encountering an Italian), or decide I am a worthy contact and try to dig, dig, dig into my personal details. As someone educated in both East and West, I of course find this unacceptable.

[Xmmm]

Frankly, French output with poor pronunciation and a thick accent is not easy to bear.

Spanish is a much more phonetic language and there is less chance to get the sounds and intonation wrong.

Italian is in the middle but also need more care in order to sound right and pleasant.

You can't blame people who don't want to hear unpleasant sounds.

I've spent most of my life listening to the most appalling accents in English. But anybody who can manage to communicate information at a B1 level expects me to put up with it. They would be offended and think I was a jerk if I said "I'm sorry, your accent is so crappy I can't stand it for even five more minutes."

When I turn around and learn a foreign language, I get all these warnings on this board like "if you're not spot on, perfect, sound like you're born in Moscow, Paris, wherever, no one will even return your greeting."

I say the hell with that. We native English speakers need to organize and fight this injustice. I'm delegating the task of organizing the battle strategy to Speakeasy. I will, of course, remain as the figurehead ...

[Speakeasy]

... I'm delegating the task of organizing the battle strategy to Speakeasy. I will, of course, remain as the figurehead ...

... if you can find him!

poisoned chalice (noun)
An assignment, award, or honour which is likely to prove a disadvantage or source of problems to the recipient.
- Oxford Living Dictionaries

[aokoye]

I'll apologize up front for this being off topic.
I find all of the talk about Americans (or shall I say, USA'ins) really amusing given just how few people, percentage wise from the US actually travel outside of North America. This Huffington Post article estimates that 5% of the US population traveled overseas in 2009. Around 46% of US citizens have passports and it's very likely that most passport holders here use them to go to Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, according to the BBC, 76% of UK citizens are passport holders.

Additionally what I find interesting is the talk about not just English language schools in places like the Czech Republic, but also AF, the Goethe Institut, and the Cervantes Institute. For better or worse, it's a hell of a lot easier to get any sort of language immersion for French, Spanish, and German (among other languages spoken in European countries) in Europe as opposed to the US because actually traveling to countries and areas that speak those languages is just so much easier. The one exception might be Spanish in some parts of the US, but that is really not a prestige language (which I have a lot of thoughts about). Yes you might get paid more if you're able to speak it as well as English, but the competition there is very high. There are 6 Goethe Institutes in France, a country that is a little under twice the size of California with its one Goethe Institut (and yes California has a population of around 28 million fewer people - but if California was its own country in Europe, there would likely be three GI locations) and smaller in area than Texas which doesn't have one period. Even large cities like Philadelphia, which is has a larger population larger than Prague with its one Goethe Institut, don't Goethe Institut locations.

Alliance Française appears to be a bit better with 100 locations but not all of those locations actually teach classes, group or 1:1. From the AF Boise (Idaho) website:

We are a small but friendly group. That said, we do not have an established locale in which to offer classes. However, we suggest that you meet with a private tutor to supplement your class work, brush up your French, or to get ready for an upcoming trip or stay abroad! Individualized and customized instruction is our specialty.

Moreover, from what I've seen from the course descriptions from the Portland chapter, it looks like their classes move the speed of high school French classes, perhaps even slower. They're also really expensive.

Even when we look at things like test taking things are a mess. When I take TestDaF in the fall I will likely have to fly over four hours to Chicago (that's on a direct flight) to take it. There are eight locations across the US to take the next test this year, four of which are on the East Coast. And here is what I think a lot of people who aren't from North America really don't grasp. The US is massive in terms of land mass. It's really expensive to travel both domestically and internationally. The closest large city to me is 3 hours north of me by car (and longer by train). It's faster (and more comfortable) to take the TGV from Paris to Lyon. If travel and economics are major reasons to learn a language why, would your average person from the US learn a language that they won't use in their day to day lives, likely won't serve them very well economically, is are primarily spoken in countries that are 5 thousand miles away? I picked a random date in March and the cheapest round trip flight to Berlin from Portland costs $1,270 and has a total travel time of around 13 hours (a little less going and a little more coming back). I hear people saying, "but Adam, that's both a transcontinental and transoceanic flight!" A flight to Tokyo for the same dates is $1,157 (and a few hours less) though it looks like I've found a flight for $781 as well. I know quite a number people with good and stable jobs who can't afford to do that. In terms of say, going to Quebec to practice French there, a flight during those same days is nearly $600. On the other hand I can find flights from Berlin to London on British Airways for $131 and significantly cheaper on budget airlines.

All of that is also ignoring the major issues in the US education system in general, not just foreign language education but things like math, English, and science. It's also ignoring things like government mandated paid time off (or lack thereof).

Given that the US is so large I find it really amusing if not dismaying, that people who aren't from or haven't spent large amounts of time in the US are so wont to make generalizations, in terms of personality, about people from the US. I'm even more bemused about generalizations about anglophone countries because that that point you're making assumptions about 519,450,806 people and that's only counting inner circle anglophone countries.