Learning two languages
Hello,
I read some posts from the archives regarding learning two languages simultaneously. I'm a native speaker of English, and I'm currently learning Russian. I'm still a "beginner", currently on lesson 24 of 30 in Pimsleur's Russian I.
The previous posts discussed the problems with learning two similar languages such as Spanish and Italian. However, I was wondering if anybody has had any experience learning two languages that are TOTALLY different. For example, Russian & Arabic. Or perhaps Russian & Japanese.
Any input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you,
Jody
Yes. In some circumstances, learning two very different languages
can be a very good idea.
Re: Learning two languages that are totally different:
It's possible. Your mind will simply have to store two very different mental maps for each of the two languages.
Nevertheless, two foreign languages are about all that anyone can learn to speak and still have near-native fluency in them . The human mind can only memorize so many words and three or more languages would make too much of a demand.
Brennus: >>Nevertheless, two foreign languages are about all that anyone can learn to speak and still have near-native fluency in them . The human mind can only memorize so many words and three or more languages would make too much of a demand.<<
I tend to agree with this. In my case, the two foreign languages I have near-native fluency in are Serbo-Croatian and English (I use English more nowadays, actually, so I am more fluent in it now). With the other languages I have learnt, I feel there may be a "fluency barrier", at about upper intermediate level at best.
As I see it, the problem is not only connected with memorising a certain amount of words, but also with the ability to master the usage patterns of more than two (or possibly three) foreign languages on near-native level (meaning at ALL levels of usage and in ALL registers). The only exception might be when you start using a foreign language for a prolonged period out of necessity (e.g. if you are already bilingual and you move to a country where a third foreign language is spoken, you might end up speaking that language with near-native fluency after having lived in that country for some years).
>>Nevertheless, two foreign languages are about all that anyone can learn to speak and still have near-native fluency in them . The human mind can only memorize so many words and three or more languages would make too much of a demand.<<
Do an internet search for Barry Farber, who reportedly
speaks over 25 languages. Then there is Ziad Fazah who reportedly
reads, speaks and understands more than 40 languages.
Easterner,
Re: "I tend to agree with this."
Thank you for your comments here. I only wish I had phrased it a little better. I think it's remarkable that you know English as well as you do since Hungarian is structurally very different from English. On the other hand, Hungarian and English are alike in that both languages have been battered and pushed around a lot by their neighbors in the distant past and contain many foreign loanwords.
Geoff_One,
The men you mention (Barry Farber & Ziad Fazah) probably speak only two foreign languages with approximate native fluency. In the case of the rest, I suspect that what they have is what is called a "speaking knowledge" of the language. To have a speaking knowledge of a language you don't need to know the whole language; you may need to know as little as 850 words in the language - that's all that Charles K. Ogden's Basic English has.
I don't think that Jody is worried about "near-native fluency" at this point. I think the original question had to do with the EFFECTIVENESS of studying two or more dissimilar languages at the same time. (From my own experience, similar languages ARE a problem, at least for output.)
I have not had such output mix-up problems studying two dissimilar languages, but I'd like to know others' experience in the EFFICIENCY of studying more than one, especially when trying to reach a more advanced level. Besides the time factor, do you lose the ''intensity" (to use Steve K's term) by switching from one to another? Some experts (like Krashen) talk of the "din-in-the-head" phenomenon--where you "hear" the language in your head after periods of use or exposure--does this get diluted when studying more than one? Wouldn't it be more efficient to dive totally into one language, achieve a reasonable command of that, before taking on a second one? Or can you study two or more to a good level without such problems?
My point was that it is possible to learn two similar or disimilar foreigin languages equally well. However 2 (two) foreign languages are about the limit. Learning three or more foreign languages would require a superhuman memory. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
People sometimes foreget that you need to know a minimum of 10,000 words before you can even begin to converse fluently in a language.
Studies done as far back as the 1950's show that 10,000 words is about what a stupid adult knows. Adults of average intelligence know about 40,000 words. I'm not sure what the maximum known level of vocabulary has been for a smart person.
> Wouldn't it be more efficient to dive totally into one language, achieve a reasonable command of that, before taking on a second one? <
This is an extremely good idea!! However, as peoples lives become more involved (complicated), it becomes too late for this. True, there may be some people ( I don't have a statistic for the percentage here) who are able to filter out the noise that comes from the complications and stick to the one language, even if that language is not Mandarin, English, Spanish or Hindi. Having said this, I should also point out the obvious - the case for concentrating on a particular language (eg English) can in many many cases be so strong that the noise is not an issue.
Look at two of the dilemas in Australia
1. Latin Languages. Does one study Italian? For many
years Italian has been the number 2 language (After English)
in Australia and probably still is - I haven't checked the latest statistics.
Does one study Spanish because Spanish by all definitions is a world
language? Does one study French? In Australia the study of French is very popular. Enormous resources are provided to promote and enable
the study of French, presumably by the French government (?). New Calidonia is not too far away. The French speaking world is large.
Does one study Portuguese? The neighbouring country of East Timor (sea border) has Portuguese as an official language. The Portuguese speaking world is large. Readers of this post are invited to pick the Latin language that they would concentrate on if they were a hypothetical Australian (If you speak one or more Latin languages take the hypothetical position that you are a monolingual speaker of English).
2. Chinese Languages. After English, Chinese Cantonese is the third language in Australia. And here in Australia, it has about twice as many speakers as Chinese Mandarin. Chinese Mandarin has more first language speakers than any other language. Which one would you pick to study in Australia?
Mitch: >>Besides the time factor, do you lose the ''intensity" (to use Steve K's term) by switching from one to another? Some experts (like Krashen) talk of the "din-in-the-head" phenomenon--where you "hear" the language in your head after periods of use or exposure--does this get diluted when studying more than one? Wouldn't it be more efficient to dive totally into one language, achieve a reasonable command of that, before taking on a second one? Or can you study two or more to a good level without such problems?<<
To reply to the last two questions first, I think all this also depends on the complexity of the language(s) in question, or the extent to which the target language differs from your own language or the ones you already know. I had no problems learning French and German (languages of medium complexity on my 'personal scale') simultaneously in adolescence, but when I started to learn Russian (a language with a relatively complex case system), I felt that learning any other language besides it would seriuosly slow down the progress. I guess it would be the same case with Arabic or Hindi, if I took up any of them.
As for the first two questions, I think the "din-in-the head" phenomenon depends on how much you are exposed to a given language, and not so much on whether you are learning another one at the same time or not. I have an interesting experience with Italian and French. I am more fluent in French than in Italian, but at a time I was so much "in love" with the latter that I read and listened to it extensively whenever and wherever I could. As a result, it is much easier to "reproduce" Italian in my head than French, which I haven't been exposed to so much lately. And I tend to think that the "intensity" is connected with your personal motivation and your capacity to "enjoy" learning the given language. If you are learning two languages and you enjoy learning one of them more than the other, you will most probably feel that you are making more "intense" progress in the language which you find more pleasure in learning.
Easterner (and other Hungarians),
On the subject of how many languages one can learn to fluency: I read an article by Krashen about Kato Lomb. She supposedly knew 17 languages well--all of which she studied as an adult, most without leaving Hungary. She was still learning in her eighties. She didn't think she was particulary gifted; she just used her own methods (e.g., the "core-novel" method, where she read one novel extremely thoroughly.) She certainly seems to refute the age factor, and the number of languages one can master. Was she well known in Hungary, and do you know more about her methods?
By the way, for a list of well-know polyglots--some with more languages than Fazah, see:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/l/li/list_of_noted_polyglots.htm
Mitch,
I know about Kato Lomb, and she is quite well known in Hungary. She actually didn't feel much like learning languages till about her mid-thirties. Then she started learning them based on the "core-novel" method: she did not use coursebooks at all (because she found them boring and artificial): instead, she tried to find some interesting books in the languages she wanted to learn, and read principally for the story. While doing this, she picked up the language spontaneously (the languages she learnt in this way included Chinese and Hebrew - although I don't know how she mastered Chinese writing). She was indeed fluent in 17 languages (and had an at least elementary knowledge of about 13 more), but I don't know about the degree of her fluency in those languages.
Another important method she used was writing a diary in the target language, and as I know, she also spoke in it to herself, as a way of "thinking aloud" - this made up for the lack of opportunity to talk to native speakers. This is basically what I know about her methods. I'll try to find more information about them. However, I have a feeling that while effective in her case, this method may not be appropriate for everyone - at least I feel it may become frustrating for the more extrovert types who tend to learn better through speaking and other types of interaction.
By the way, I have also made use of this type of reading, and found that one may progress rather fast by using it. What I know of Italian has been the result of mostly reading books and articles of the most diverse sort. On the other hand, I think that the type of knowledge acquired with its help should be backed up by contact with native speakers to ensure that you use the language in a meaningful way. I've also tried speaking to myself in a foreign language, but it tends to become rather boring after a while, and if in a public place, you tend to get strange looks from passer-by's... :)
Sorry, I meant passers-by... Apparently, I don't use this word too often in the plural... :)
To Geoff -One: what about Malay?
How many millions speak that language next door to you?