The Untranslated -- Language learning to read untranslated literature

[Le Baron]

Wouter Corduwener seems to be a nice chap otherwise. You don't see him around on YT as much these days.

[lichtrausch]

The author of The Untranslated was tired of waiting for the translation of Mircea Cărtărescu's latest novel Theodoros due out later this year, so he did what I'm sure anyone would do in that situation: he taught himself Romanian and read the damn book.

[Cavesa]

Interesting, how this conversation fluidly continues after a few years of a break. And I stand by my points in it.

I enjoy plenty of genre literature myself, but I think there's also a valid point to be had about online polyglot communities that call it a day with a language once they find themselves able to hold a conversation about routine topics and read books that are relatively simple in both stylistic and linguistic terms. Some people just chase numbers to be able to say they speak however many languages, getting several up to a low B1 language and never really developing a high degree of mastery in any one of them. A learner of all languages and master of none, as it were.

But those are two rather unrelated things. Reading genre literature is not "B1 and never really developing a high degree of mastery". This is the kind of snobbish attitude towards genre literature, that is rather harmful in our society and reading culture. Many "low genre" authors have rich vocabulary, solid or even excellent style, and definitely don't lack thought. Just like you'd find easier and harder authors among the canonical works, you will find them among the low genres too, even if some genres may have a more skewed % of each.

Someone fully appreciating Pratchett, Tolkien, Jordan, Dantec, Robert, etc. in a foreign language is definitely not B1.

That said, an ability to read sophisticated literary works is only so useful as a proxy for overall competence in a given language.

Nope, that is not a general rule. Not only are most books I've read more interesting than most people I've met (just half joking. Or even less). Many people are simply primarily after reading. Not only most Latin and other classics learners. But also most scientists using English don't really use anything else than reading in their field. And tons of people learning a language primarily to enjoy what it offers on the bookshelf, not really for people.

Don't get me wrong, reading CAN of course work as mainly a tool to improve overall skills, some people treat it as just a tool. But it is definitely not "only so useful as a proxy", no matter whether you read YA or the oldest and longest canonical work available. And btw, the disdained low genres are often more useful for improving overall skills, than the canon.

Within the Japanese learning community, for example, there's something of a stereotypical successful learner who manages to pass the N1 exam, can read difficult books full of obscure kanji with ease, yet would struggle to order a meal or write a book report on Clifford the Big Red Dog in Japanese, since the test doesn't have any components that test your ability to actually produce Japanese.

Therefore, shouldn't there just be more than one stereotype of a successful learner? Shouldn't we just present and cultivate more ideas of what success is? Without shaming the current one?

Because what you describe is indeed a very successful learner. Sounds like someone either becoming a japanologist at university and translating or something like that for a living, or someone simply loving the Japanese culture (perhaps some difficult authors), but never planning to travel there. After all, let's not forget that travelling is not automatic, not even outside of the covid times. It is not accessible to everybody. So, why should that stereotypical successful learner, that you describe, feel ashamed about not having skills they'd never get to use anyways?

[Cavesa]

The author of The Untranslated was tired of waiting for the translation of Mircea Cărtărescu's latest novel Theodoros due out later this year, so he did what I'm sure anyone would do in that situation: he taught himself Romanian and read the damn book.

That's the spirit!

Actually, that's why a large part of my generation improved English quickly. As kids, we were tired of waiting for translation of the new Harry Potter books. But yep, some people won't find it cool, because we did it for HP and not Dickens or Shakespeare

And once I find the time, this will be my main motivation to learn Polish. Not for their canon, but for the tons of fantasy and scifi, a large part of which doesn't get translated.

[kleene*star]

But yep, some people won't find it cool, because we did it for HP and not Dickens or Shakespeare

What kind of person would expect a kid to read Shakespeare in any language, let alone in the original, sixteenth century English?

[Cavesa]

But yep, some people won't find it cool, because we did it for HP and not Dickens or Shakespeare

What kind of person would expect a kid to read Shakespeare in any language, let alone in the original, sixteenth century English?

Well, it is very common in translation. The first time Shakespeare was on the obligatory reading list, I was like 12 years old. The age was not the issue though. At that point in life, I was choosing my books by length and epicness, my favourite authors were Dumas, Hugo, King, and other representats of the "the longer, the better" attitude. Shakespeare just couldn't interest me at that point of life. But a few years later, I enjoyed some of his plays, because I was simply busier and appreciated short obligatory books more

Who am I kidding, I still prefer loooooong books It wasn't just a phase. But I can appreciate the short ones too now.

One of the main missing pieces on the market though, in my opinion, is promoting not just plurilingualism, but also non-anglophone authors. The author of the blog this thread is about, is awesome. But how does he get to know about the target books in the first place? I think his latest Romanian example is one of the most common ones: getting to know an author in translation, and just not waiting for the translation of another work by the same person.

[emk]

What kind of person would expect a kid to read Shakespeare in any language, let alone in the original, sixteenth century English?

Well, it is very common in translation. The first time Shakespeare was on the obligatory reading list, I was like 12 years old.

Yeah, I think it's super common to first read Romeo and Juliet around age 15, and some honors or drama students might do it at 13?

Romeo and Juliet is pretty much pure teenage angst and drama and tragedy. If it's well taught, younger teenagers absolutely enjoy it. And of course we all watched the 1996 movie, which takes its dialogue straight out of the play. I suspect Shakespeare would have liked it; he was always one for low humor, popular appeal, and reinterpreting the classics.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is often pretty popular, too. It's a farce, full of the sorts of things people stick in tasteless teenage comedies.

Honestly, the main reason not to teach Shakespeare to 10 year olds is that it has more adult humor than any Marvel movie. "The bawdy hand of the dial" would not be allowed in a PG-13 movie these days.

[jeff_lindqvist]

I remember having to read Hamlet (in Swedish) during first (or second) year of high school. I read it in English of my own free will some years ago.

[cpnlsn88]

Some one, somewhere may have discussed (I might have commented on it) about the primary focus of language learning.

Typically in Ancient Greek and Latin one learns to access literature. I know there are more and more people who speak these languages and it's great listening to them. If language exists one should access it on as many levels as possible (I find it helpful to listen to spoken Greek and Latin and to try to improve my pronunciation where possible).

But it seems to me there's a big bifurcation in the world. Those who want flowing and spontaneous conversation and those who want to read works in whichever genre.

I guess there's a group of people who 'want it all' as well.

I only say this because the 'reading only/primarily' stream might need different materials and models to effectively reach the goal, as well as validation and, I guess, some pointers as to available content.

I think this is important because there could be a big market out there for a reading course in a given language rather than verbal efficiency and I imagine that, say, someone well read in Italian literature will be able fairly easily to develop spoken skills (maybe with some quirks).

Anyway it's worth thinking about because there might be a big market out there of people interested in language learning who are put off or not adequately catered for.

What I think it comes down to is a conversation with yourself early on and at intervals as to what you want to get out of this endeavour and tailor your learning/activities accordingly - it might be a very different outcome to that of others.

[zgriptsuroica]

Interesting, how this conversation fluidly continues after a few years of a break. And I stand by my points in it.

But those are two rather unrelated things. Reading genre literature is not "B1 and never really developing a high degree of mastery". This is the kind of snobbish attitude towards genre literature, that is rather harmful in our society and reading culture. Many "low genre" authors have rich vocabulary, solid or even excellent style, and definitely don't lack thought. Just like you'd find easier and harder authors among the canonical works, you will find them among the low genres too, even if some genres may have a more skewed % of each.

Someone fully appreciating Pratchett, Tolkien, Jordan, Dantec, Robert, etc. in a foreign language is definitely not B1.

Nope, that is not a general rule. Not only are most books I've read more interesting than most people I've met (just half joking. Or even less). Many people are simply primarily after reading. Not only most Latin and other classics learners. But also most scientists using English don't really use anything else than reading in their field. And tons of people learning a language primarily to enjoy what it offers on the bookshelf, not really for people.

Because what you describe is indeed a very successful learner. Sounds like someone either becoming a japanologist at university and translating or something like that for a living, or someone simply loving the Japanese culture (perhaps some difficult authors), but never planning to travel there. After all, let's not forget that travelling is not automatic, not even outside of the covid times. It is not accessible to everybody. So, why should that stereotypical successful learner, that you describe, feel ashamed about not having skills they'd never get to use anyways?

You're putting words in my mouth and attacking a straw man, so let's clear some things up. First, I have at no point said that only pursuing a reading knowledge of a language is not a valid goal, in and of itself. I have been specifically talking about people who represent having a low level of productive skills and the ability to read some relatively simple text as having a full command of a language, especially in the context of influencers trying to use this inflated estimation of their abilities to sell their methods to other learners. Next, genre literature is absolutely valid and there are exceptional titles and authors to be found within it. You are absolutely mad, however, if you want to try and pretend as though these exceptional works and authors are representative of genre literature at large. You're also disregarding the benefits of specialization for consuming genre literature. Yes, science fiction or fantasy, or any other genre can have some advanced vocabulary, but there is a limit to the breadth of it required it. You can absolutely be able to read meaty hard science fiction tomes, yet woefully lacking in even passive vocabulary in other areas. Heck, you could read through all of The Lord of the Rings and a fair bit of more modern fantasy, know the names of three dozen species of trees in English, be well-versed in terms for medieval weaponry and armor, yet never encounter such advanced concepts as making a phone call, participating in an interview, or going on vacation in any of them.

Heck, I primarily learn because I'm interested in reading, but I qualify my abilities accordingly, which is the only thing I'm advocating. If you say "I know Portuguese" when you really mean "I've read the major works of lusophone authors and can comfortably read anything, but I can't speak, write or understand it," you're misrepresenting your abilities and should be clear about them. Not everyone needs to have the same goals, and different goals are perfectly valid.

Don't get me wrong, reading CAN of course work as mainly a tool to improve overall skills, some people treat it as just a tool. But it is definitely not "only so useful as a proxy", no matter whether you read YA or the oldest and longest canonical work available.

Yes, it absolutely is only so useful as a proxy to your abilities to do anything except read, absent any other qualifications for your abilities. People can have entirely different goals. If you were to judge my ability to speak French based on the books I can comfortably read, you would woefully overestimate my abilities. If you applied for a job that required you to have a high command of written and spoken English and on the basis of only being able to read novels you said "I know English," without any qualifications, you would be fired and your judgement severely questioned if it came to light you only have a reading knowledge of English. Even if you are a highly competent reader and can fully appreciate the authors in your list above, if you couldn't sustain routine conversation in English, you would have misrepresented yourself. This is the whole reason we have terms to address various levels of competency to begin with, like saying you have a reading knowledge of a language, or that you are conversational in one.

As an aside, while I don't disagree with the thought behind much of what you're saying, you could stand to dial down the snark a bit and focus first on actually addressing what was said, rather than launching into your defense of genre literature and diverging learning goals.

Edit: To clarify on the point of the stereotypical N1 learner who can't speak at all, the issue isn't that they only have high reading and listening abilities, but that they generally want to be able to use Japanese in all forms and aren't. Some people just take the N1 for a lark, but for many people, it's a condition of being able to move to Japan to work in a Japanese company or to study in a Japanese university. Given that the JLPT doesn't test writing or speaking abilities at all, studying to pass the test tends to result in neglecting these skills unless deliberate efforts are made to maintain them. Within the Japanese learning community, I've seen two trends that aggravate this tendency. First, there is a heavy belief in the magic of test results, where people say stuff like "If you pass the N1, you're fluent." Secondly, there are a lot of questionable methods for language acquisition being pushed in the community, and it's easy for people to want to believe they'll work and give them a leg up, given how passionate they tend to be about Japanese and Japan, and the reputation the language has for being fiendishly difficult. I haven't participated in a while, but I would routinely see people advocating stuff like "Don't try to speak or write at all initially, just keep reading and listening until you can automatically form full, proper sentences by intuition. If you try to speak before this happens, you'll get fossilized errors you'll never be able to overcome and your accent will always suck." People follow this sort of advice or just study to pass the N1 and routinely wind up upset that they are unable to actually speak or write as well as they thought they would be able to. It's a pretty regular occurence from what I've seen. There's nothing wrong with people who get up to N1 reading because they just want to read Visual Novels full of obscure kanji, but they are not who I was talking about.