NationStates Jolt Archive

... Its people not being as lingual as others you are wrong. Ok for my whole life I've heard, Americans are so arrogant here we have all these different cultures in the world yet Americans travel to countrys without knowledge of that country's language, and when the tourists go to America the tourists learn to speak English. First of all I always learn a little of the language. Second this will change everyones mind.

When I was in Rome I went to the Coloseum. I bought a ticket from the Italian cashier than I backed up two steps and just stood there. A family came up and started purchasing a ticket. Guess what language the family was speaking to the Italian guy? English! And so the Italian guy had no choice but to speak English back. But wait, the nationality of these people was Russian! Thats right! English is such a universal language that a guy who speaks Russian and a guy who speaks Italian both speak English as a second language, speak that way to each other, and dont bother to learn another language. I rest my case.

The point being that the Russian knew English and the Italian also knew English - a different language than their native ones. They were thus at least bilingual.

Bilingual Americans are hard to find among tourists. Not so much with other nationalities. That is the point, which you seem to miss.

The American language deficit has more to do with a bad education system and geography than anything. Europeans speak so many languages because it's more necessary. Within a few hundred miles of any European capital are literally hundreds of languages and dialects. Whats within a few hundred miles of most American cities? a smattering of immigrants, but mostly nothing but anglophones.

The point being that the Russian knew English and the Italian also knew English - a different language than their native ones. They were thus at least bilingual.

Bilingual Americans are hard to find among tourists. Not so much with other nationalities. That is the point, which you seem to miss.

Thats not true, a bunch of Americans are bilingual in either English and Spanish or English and French, others have different bilinguility. The point Im trying to make is most people have English as a second language because its needed for business purposes and it stands out because English is the most widespread spoken language that people care about speaking. Thats why tons of countries teach it to their students. Therefor if bilingual Americans go to Italy or something they wont no how to speak it and that sticks out but if an Italian goes to the US or England or Canada or Australia he will know only that other language and that will stick out but in a good way.

Of course both sides have exceptions.

I think the problem is that not many languages are taught in school. At my school only two languages are taught, Spanish and Latin. Spanish is a good language all around, and Latin is good for science and music(which is what I plan to major in for collage). However, I would like to learn a lot of languages and can't find a place to do this. I don't think it is a lot of American's faults that they are not bilingual, they just can't find a place to learn the language.

I am sorry if this post is full of bull crap...it is just what I am experiencing.

Edit*

*If anyone cares, I want to learn Italian and German.

Thats not true, a bunch of Americans are bilingual in either English and Spanish or English and French, others have different bilinguility. The point Im trying to make is most people have English as a second language because its needed for business purposes and it stands out because English is the most widespread spoken language that people care about speaking. Thats why tons of countries teach it to their students. Therefor if bilingual Americans go to Italy or something they wont no how to speak it and that sticks out but if an Italian goes to the US or England or Canada or Australia he will know only that other language and that will stick out but in a good way.

And if the Italian goes to a non-English speaking country? You'd be surprised how well they do in countries like France where it's basically French or nothing outside of the larger cities.

I have seen so many Americans tourists not even try to speak the local language - they use English exclusively and get annoyed if someone doesn't understand it. Imagine if I did that in the US? English is not the issue. The lack of any other attempt because of ignorance is.

The point being that the Russian knew English and the Italian also knew English - a different language than their native ones. They were thus at least bilingual.

Bilingual Americans are hard to find among tourists. Not so much with other nationalities. That is the point, which you seem to miss.

How about we entertain a couple of other concepts.

1) A good chunk of the American population knows more than 1 language. Especially given that many in the US are immigrants, many at least know their mother tongue. At the very least, Spanish is a very common second language.

2) Just like French was the language of business and diplomacy a couple of hundred years ago, now it is Englishs turn. If you were French a few hundred years ago, you could get by with only French because everyone else spent time learning French. Now, if you speak English, you can get by because everyone else takes time and effort to learn English. Tomorrow, maybe it will Chinese, Japanese or Hindi.

3) You might think that knowing many languages is a) so difficult or b) so worthwhile. While I think it is nice to know many languages, I dont think it is any big deal.

My grandfather's driver knows 4 plus a smattering of English. He needed to because Indian states are about as big as European countries and he used to be a truck driver. On the other hand, he wouldnt let his daughter come home just because her husband used to beat her badly. She is dead now, and he still talks like she embarressed the family by trying to leave him. Good driver though, when he is sober. But hey!!! He speaks more than 1 language so he must be skilled.

This does not apply to everyone, but in general English people are just as bad as Americans. I recently went to Paris with a large group and I was the only one that made any effort to speak french. My french isn't that good BTW, but it was enough for my needs!

The trouble with the argument here, is that it's probable that the Russian and the Italian were both more fluent in English than the original poster and most Americans.

English is the universal language. Air traffic communication all over the world is in English. Most schools in non-English speaking classes have English as their #1 foreign language class. As another poster pointed out, the size of most countries requires that the citizens be at least somewhat conversant in the languages of neighboring countries. In the US, our northern neighbor is primarily English speaking. Our southern neighbors speak Spanish, and that is the most common 2nd language offered to students. Most people in the US speak at least a smattering of another language depending on predominant immigrant saturation in their area....Mexican, Vietnamese, Italian, Swedish, Russian, etc. Although English is our first language, our country is so large and has so many diverse cultures, that most people here are at least minimally bilingual. How many of you from other countries think you could come to the US and communicate with the natives of Louisiana?

our northern neighbor is primarily English speaking.

That may be true, however Canada has two official languages. English & French. Are we in the US ready to do the same with Spanish?

Why would the entire country adopt Spanish as its second primary language? Because we have over 10 million undocumented Mexican aliens living here? Why not make French our second language as it is the source of the native tongue of most of the people in Louisiana? Or why not Swedish as it is commonly spoken in Minnesota? I say we switch to Yiddish as most of my relatives speak it at home. Of course, my ex's family speak Italian when they're all together. Or, more realistically, Navajo, as that is the mutually used language of most Native American tribes. In my community, we have an influx of folks from Kashmire...want to learn Kashmiri?

Heck, when a northerner moves down here to the south, they swear we're not speaking English. Of course, we harbor the same beliefs about them.

This has nothing to do with the world thinking America is ignorant. It just means that the Russian people and the Italian dude spoke English as a second language.

Reason why most Americans don't speak a second language: Modern Pop Culture degrades the average American's mind into a pulp (coming from an American), lowering test scores, willingness to comply with teacher requests, homework doing ability, and attention span.

Luckily I escaped this plague by going to private school for 8 years =D

A point that is being missed here is that this is not an exclusively American phenomenon. The British, Australians, and New Zealanders are equally bad at attempting to learn foreign languages in general.

Some of it is laziness, but some of it is due to the fact that English is the common language of communication around the world. As such, native speakers of English do not feel embarassed when they have to speak to a foreigner and don't know his or her language, However there are plenty of people I have met that are embaressed that they do not speak English, even though I am in their country (I do speak Portuguese though).

This has nothing to do with the world thinking America is ignorant. It just means that the Russian people and the Italian dude spoke English as a second language.

Reason why most Americans don't speak a second language: Modern Pop Culture degrades the average American's mind into a pulp (coming from an American), lowering test scores, willingness to comply with teacher requests, homework doing ability, and attention span.

Luckily I escaped this plague by going to private school for 8 years =D

You can blame the educational standard all you want, but if a person has the drive, ambition, and desire, the only thing that will limit their capability to learn is their own intelligence. The classes and the books are there. If families teach their children to achieve, they will take advantage of the opportunities offered. I recently saw a report that 107 students scored a perfect score on their SATs this spring. 3 of them were from one school. All 3 were Asian. The Asian families I know constantly encourage their children to perform to the best of their ability. The problem isn't the schools...it's the lack of parenting.

here is the real problem with americans and other languages.


when do you need them? NEVER

ya ya i live in the southwest so my spanish comes in handy now and then.

but when did i ever use my 3 years of highschool french? one week in france and 15 minutes in quebec one time (in montreal they mostly wouldnt even let me try using french)

wow theres a great reason for 3 years of study! and what good does french do me in germany? in finland? in greece??

im still going to be ignorant in any country that doesnt use french. im really not going to learn swedish on the off chance that i might go there some day.

see what i mean? its just not very useful and the one or 2 languages one might learn arent going to do you much good in countries that dont use them.

You can blame the educational standard all you want, but if a person has the drive, ambition, and desire, the only thing that will limit their capability to learn is their own intelligence. The classes and the books are there. If families teach their children to achieve, they will take advantage of the opportunities offered. I recently saw a report that 107 students scored a perfect score on their SATs this spring. 3 of them were from one school. All 3 were Asian. The Asian families I know constantly encourage their children to perform to the best of their ability. The problem isn't the schools...it's the lack of parenting.

I know I'm blaming the education system, and I also know your second point of that burning desire and ambition, seeing as my school's a mix of MTV retards and Albert Einstein Clones, I think myself a mix of both

Heck, when a northerner moves down here to the south, they swear we're not speaking English. Of course, we harbor the same beliefs about them.

Yes, there are many different shall we say "styles" of English right here within the US itself. One could argue some in the south don't even speak English..lol :D

here is the real problem with americans and other languages.


when do you need them? NEVER

ya ya i live in the southwest so my spanish comes in handy now and then.

but when did i ever use my 3 years of highschool french? one week in france and 15 minutes in quebec one time (in montreal they mostly wouldnt even let me try using french)

wow theres a great reason for 3 years of study! and what good does french do me in germany? in finland? in greece??

im still going to be ignorant in any country that doesnt use french. im really not going to learn swedish on the off chance that i might go there some day.

see what i mean? its just not very useful and the one or 2 languages one might learn arent going to do you much good in countries that dont use them.

Which reinforces a point I was trying to make. You live in the southwest so Spanish comes in handy. But, you never need French in your area. However, here in Arkansas, as a neighboring state of Louisiana, and as the wife of a Cajun, I use a little Cajun French (Creole) now and then. I work with a guy from Minnesota. He was broght to the US from Vietnam when he was 1. He speaks English, Vietnamese, and Swedish fluently. He is now married to a woman from Columbia and is trying to learn Spanish...but his wife says he is speaking it with a Swedish accent. Go figure.

I'll verify what a couple of people have said -- we British are just as bad as our dear offspring over the Atlantic (which is all growed up and off by itself now, and don't we just think it's the cutest ikkle thing?) in this instance. Mostly, we adopt the attitude of 'If you say it loud enough and slow enough, they'll understand'. I've not had the personal experience to know how well this works (although I have had experience of translating on the fly between a German speaker and a group of English teenagers -- the words 'Bist do müde?' still make me twitch).

Personally, I think the rest of the world learns English out of spite. They certainly speak it better than most of us, because they've been /taught/ it, rather than picking it up from society. One of my teachers was fond of telling the story of the English student who went on an exchange to a Spanish school and took one of their English Foreign Language exams. She got the worst marks in the entire class.

The point being that the Russian knew English and the Italian also knew English - a different language than their native ones. They were thus at least bilingual.

Bilingual Americans are hard to find among tourists. Not so much with other nationalities. That is the point, which you seem to miss.

So you believe it wrong for a family to take a vacation somewhere outside their town? Not everyone in the world can talk every language, and by the way, as seeing english is the universal trade language most people know it when they visit and/or move to the United States. We never expect anyone to learn anything, most people know it already.

Oh, I get it. You think that just because english pretty common to people of other nationalities, that Americans should just be lazy and not bother to learn other's language?

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. We as Americans should have to learn french if we're going to France like the french would if they were coming here.

I'm American by the way, but it is arrogant and niave of us to assume that anywhere we go in the world, english will be spoken. That's just not the case.

I'm American by the way, but it is arrogant and niave of us to assume that anywhere we go in the world, English will be spoken. That's just not the case. Well, I've found it anything but naive, it's the norm. English IS spoken all over the world. Bad english is the most commonly spoken language on this planet. It's just courtesy if you try to speak the native language. If you indeed try, you are immediately loved, if not, you're just another tourist. It's really up to you. I just can't see much difference there... you make your point... and it's made. Who cares what the language was used.

Thats actually the point I meant to make, I guess I couldn't word it for some reason.

I used the french example in specific. My french teacher said that most people in France can speak english in some form, but if you immediatly talk to them in english without trying to speak France, they usually won't take too kindly to you. If you try speaking french first to the best of your ability, usuallly they take a little more kindly to you.

I think it's ironic though seeing as how Spanish is being spoken like anything these days in America.

I'll admite I'm too stubborn to learn spanish for reasons that I won't talk about here.

If you are going on vacation there is no reason at all to make a serious study of the language of the country you are visiting. Learning a few useful words, thank you, hello, yes and no would be good but learning the language? It is a VACATION, a short term visit, maybe a week?
If you plan to live there then, yes, learning the language is a good idea. But, I live in Japan and I will freely admit my Japanese is sub-par. It is easy not to learn it because so many people in Japan have studied English. Usually, if I try to use Japanese they immediately switch to English. If I keep trying Japanese they keep speaking English. AAAArrrrrg! I'm trying to be considerate and use your language!!! Stop using mine!!!!
It can be quite comical. :)

Oh, right, Common Europe. Try to speak the 'native' if you can. I'm sure you can get your message accross without it though... somehow.

There is a huge difference in learning enough of a language to be polite and learning enough to be conversant. I firmly believe that you should try to learn little things like "please", "thanks", "you're welcome", and so on. To try to string a sentence together about finding the nearest bar or restaurant might be possible, but then you have to figure out what the answer meant. It is even more difficult to engage a cab driver in conversation about the latest article in Le Monde.

Like all other problems, it's a tradeoff. How much time to prepare for that week in France versus how well you will really be able to converse once you get there. With as many countries as I go to each year, the solution is to pick up what I can when I get there and forget it immediately after clearing immigration on the way home. I've found that politeness supersedes any language ability I may or may not have.

An example. Swedish is the 2nd official language of Finland. All of us must learn it. What do the Finns visiting Stockholm do? The first time they counter the question ''what/i peg your pardon?" in swedish, they switch to english... and everything is dandy. It's not like they can't speak Swedish, English is just more equal... they both suck equally, the Finn and the Swede.

it is a matter of education and location, country size is also an issue
On my last vacation, I drove 850 miles (1400 Kilometers) ONE WAY to my brothers house (Cincinnati OH to Oklahoma City OK)
I never left the US, did not even drive HALFWAY across it, in what european country can I do that without drivign into a country that speaks a different language?

Since 1975, when my family moved back from Germany (father in the Air force), i have been in exactly 2 places that did not speak english (or what passes for english in the US) Tiajania (sp) Mexico for 4 hours in 1990 and 4 times to montrial Canada to pick up new trucks to bring to the US

In Mexico, I was with someone who spoke Mexican, only reason I went and the people were much nicer to me than the People in Montrial, were I had to spend the night once because my flight was late

while in Germany as a child, I could speak some and understand more, could not do that now since I have had no use for it for 30 years

Most US citizens never leave the country, even on vacation, the northerners go south in the winter and some of the southerners go north in the winter play in the snow

As such, most people never have any desire to learn another language since they do not see that they would ever use it, I took the manditory 2 years of foriegn languager in High school (spanish) I probably remember more german from living there than spanish from high school

I have plans for vacations outside the US, first to London, and then maybe to New Zealand, both places that I have half a chance of being able to be understood when I speak

With the exception of Americans who live near Mexico or Quebec, they don't need to be bilingual which is why they are not.

I've been all over Europe and the middle east, and have always survived on English. I will admit, the locals love it when you make an effort (they seem to especially love it when you pull out one of those traveller's guidebooks and mangle their language - honest to god, I've had more drinks bought for me by doing that then I can remember) and, as everyone has pointed out, this country is so huge & isolated geographically there isn't the urgency to foreign languages there is in Europe.

Having said that, I think it would be great if we started teaching serious classes in Spanish in grade school - make everyone at leat familiar. Not just because Spanish is becoming so prevalent here - I think of my self as a reel smrt guy, but I have trouble with foreign languages, and I think part of it is because I never tried to learn one untill college...everyone says the third language is easier to learn than the second.

Knibb Hi football Rules!

they don't need to be bilingual which is why they are not.

Agreed. Language is such a hard thing to master that people just don't learn another one if you don't need two.

I'm of two minds on learning another language. On one hand, having just gotten done teaching a very bad class, when you don't want to learn the language or see no need to, it's pointless. On the other hand, living in rual Japan, where there are 4 English speakers who can easily understand me makes for rough times. Not having a good command of written Japanese (or spoken for that matter) makes normally easy events into long and difficult ones.

Normally difficult ones, like registering a car, become nightmareish.

And Japan is a country obsessed with putting English subtitles on things.

I'm not sure I can condem Americans for NOT learning another language, but I can say, now, I AM disapointed in how we treat non-English speakers when they come to America.

English has become the "Lingua Franca" and the French will never ever ever get over it. They will be pissed off and grumpy for at least the next 1,000 years.

Heh, I remember when I went to italy. I tried to order something in italian, a couple times (I had like two lessons in italian... so I could understand why I wasn't comprehensible) Then I broke out the hand motions. Still nothing.

Finally I asked in english, and they understood.

I know in this one city, french worked with a couple people (northern italy, close to france, lots of the older generation knew french)

The point being that the Russian knew English and the Italian also knew English - a different language than their native ones. They were thus at least bilingual.

Bilingual Americans are hard to find among tourists. Not so much with other nationalities. That is the point, which you seem to miss.
I knew a girl once who was bilingual ... almost killed me! :D

Native english speakers suffer a distinct disadvantage over others when it comes to learning a foreign langauge. English is dead easy to learn. Also you can pretty much make it up as you go along, and still be understood.

Other languages have cases, agreements, genders and such, and therefore are too much trouble.

Everyone should just speak english, and save all the skull sweat.

Thats actually the point I meant to make, I guess I couldn't word it for some reason.

English is your first language?


I used the french example in specific. My french teacher said that most people in France can speak english in some form, but if you immediatly talk to them in english without trying to speak France, they usually won't take too kindly to you. If you try speaking french first to the best of your ability, usuallly they take a little more kindly to you.


Parisans are just assholes. There are no two ways about it. In NYC, I have yet to see someone not go out of their way to help a tourist. In Paris, they are just arrogant monkeys if you ask in English first, wont even stop walking. Ask in any other language and they will ask if you know English and then point out direcions. No wonder the Brits/Americans cant stand the frogs.

Its much better in the south.

Agreed. Language is such a hard thing to master that people just don't learn another one if you don't need two.

I just thought I'd add my two cents worth here.

Bilingualism - in fact, /multi/lingualism - is a more common state of language capacity than monolingualism. Of all the countries in the world, only New Zealand, Australia, and England have a larger population of monolinguists than multilinguists (The US and Canada may also fit into that category, but I haven't come across any studies on those areas). There are regions where it is common to speak five languages - northwestern India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a few others.

Also, I've noticed a few people mention the fact that we (primary anglophones - it's so good to be a former British colony sometimes) don't need to learn other languages. This is true - to a degree.
English is spoken as a lingua franca across the globe, despite it not being the most popular language in the world. Speakers of Mandarin outnumber speakers of English by about 4 to 1. And yet English is still the lingua franca: why?

In short, English is the lingua franca because it is the lingua franca. As Dragons Bay mentioned, acquiring a language is difficult - past a certain age. Acquiring language in childhood is naturalistic: without exception, and regardless of mental capacity (to a very slender degree), /every/one acquires language. If an individual is exposed to more than one language, they will acquire more than one language.
There are permutations and oscillations to this argument - a lot of them - but that's the general gist of language acquisition theory.

Native english speakers suffer a distinct disadvantage over others when it comes to learning a foreign langauge. English is dead easy to learn. Also you can pretty much make it up as you go along, and still be understood.

Other languages have cases, agreements, genders and such, and therefore are too much trouble.

Everyone should just speak english, and save all the skull sweat.


Have you ever actually done a comparative study of English?? English has 'case, agreements, genders and such', and it also has adjectives, gradable adjectives, allomorphs, homomorphs ... do I really need to go on?

English isn't the most common world language because it's the easiest. It's the lingua franca because of commerce and exposure.

If you're going to another country, learn the damned language.

If you're going to another country, learn the damned language.

Hear, hear. Multilingualism rocks.

Actually I've always found Parisians very helpful and polite, and quite tolerant of my dodgy Australian accent when I spoke French. (Actually I was told once or twice that I sounded American, but I think that's all to do with sentence rhythm.)

And I'd absolutely hate to have to learn English as a second language! Everything's irregular ... at least in other languages the verbs almost all obey some rules, so they're predictable. It is *not* an easy language compared to many others.

A point that is being missed here is that this is not an exclusively American phenomenon. The British, Australians, and New Zealanders are equally bad at attempting to learn foreign languages in general.

Some of it is laziness, but some of it is due to the fact that English is the common language of communication around the world. As such, native speakers of English do not feel embarassed when they have to speak to a foreigner and don't know his or her language, However there are plenty of people I have met that are embaressed that they do not speak English, even though I am in their country (I do speak Portuguese though).
I'd have to agree. When combined with the relative isolation of the English speaking countries, and the fact that English is the language of international commerce and the like, it just tends to make the need to learn another language less.

English is dead easy to learn. Also you can pretty much make it up as you go along, and still be understood.
English is WHAT?! No, native speakers of English have it easy because during the years when language is first learned, they have exposure to English by the minute. English is one of the world's most difficult languages. We have one of the most complex phonetic banks in the world, our grammar runs counter to just about everyone else, and then of course we have all these obscure rules, that at times contradicts each other, and are ignored in other cases.

And don't EVEN get me started on spelling!

Trust me, teaching EFL is a lot of fun.

The reason everyone speaks English is that the British Empire dominated for so long and to such an exstent, and it insisted on doing things in English. When the Brits finally fell in the aftermath of WWII, America became dominat, and we insist on using English too.

Have you ever actually done a comparative study of English?? English has 'case, agreements, genders and such', and it also has adjectives, gradable adjectives, allomorphs, homomorphs ... do I really need to go on?

English isn't the most common world language because it's the easiest. It's the lingua franca because of commerce and exposure.

Oh no doubt it is very difficult to master, but it is very easy to be understood, which is the main thing.

In any case, if you look at all the little subdivisions of english over the world - from Gullah to Geordie &c. - you'll see that a lot of those rules a very maleable, yet we all understand each other.

It is a very easy language. (The commerce and exposure did help too, but french, spanish, portugese and dutch, which arguably have had as much exposure do not seem to have the same level of sucess).

Have you ever actually done a comparative study of English?? English has 'case, agreements, genders and such', and it also has adjectives, gradable adjectives, allomorphs, homomorphs ... do I really need to go on?

English isn't the most common world language because it's the easiest. It's the lingua franca because of commerce and exposure.

To be fluent in English you need to master all these fine points. To communicate in English they can go swing.

Me hungry. Food?

This works. The message gets across. Now try that in a conjugated language. I wouldnt even know where to start in French or Portuguese. (Spanish probably has the same problem)

The big advantage of English is the simplicity of the basic communication that it makes possible. Mastering it, though, is asking too much for most foreigners, unless they start very young. It is actually asking too much of most native speakers, just to be fair.

And I'd absolutely hate to have to learn English as a second language! Everything's irregular ... at least in other languages the verbs almost all obey some rules, so they're predictable.

Most languages have irregularities; they're just not as prevalent as in English. It seems to be an in-built feature - you'd think with something as dynamic and endemic as language we would have phased irregularities out of the system long ago.
But, they're still there, so there must be a reason for it ...

English is WHAT?! No native speakers of English have it easy because during the years when language is first learned, they have exposure to English by the minute. English is one of the world's most difficult languages. We have one of the most complex phonetic banks in the world, our grammar runs counter to just about everyone else, and then of course we have all these obscure rules, that at times contradicts each other, and are ignored in other cases.

And don't EVEN get me started on spelling!

Trust me, teaching EFL is a lot of fun.

The reason everyone speaks English is that the British Empire dominated for so long and to such an exstent, and it insisted on doing things in English. When the Brits finally fell in the aftermath of WWII, America became dominat, and we insist on using English too.

Nah, it's a piece of piss. Everyone I know who is fully billingual, or a linguist tells me that english is dead easy.

To be fluent in English you need to master all these fine points. To communicate in English they can go swing.

Me hungry. Food?

This works. The message gets across. Now try that in a conjugated language. I wouldnt even know where to start in French or Portuguese. (Spanish probably has the same problem)

The big advantage of English is the simplicity of the basic communication that it makes possible. Mastering it, though, is asking too much for most foreigners, unless they start very young. It is actually asking too much of most native speakers, just to be fair.

Yah, that was kinda my point. But you said it better. BTW, did you read my reply to you about piss christ?

English is WHAT?! No native speakers of English have it easy because during the years when language is first learned, they have exposure to English by the minute. English is one of the world's most difficult languages. We have one of the most complex phonetic banks in the world, our grammar runs counter to just about everyone else, and then of course we have all these obscure rules, that at times contradicts each other, and are ignored in other cases.

And don't EVEN get me started on spelling!

Trust me, teaching EFL is a lot of fun.

The reason everyone speaks English is that the British Empire dominated for so long and to such an exstent, and it insisted on doing things in English. When the Brits finally fell in the aftermath of WWII, America became dominat, and we insist on using English too.

I too have spent time teaching EFL. Rules? What rules, there are none (unless you want to count something so basic as a sentence has to contain a verb.)

The point is that you can teach someone to communicate their basic needs and desires in about three hours if they want to learn it. You can not teach someone to write fluent, well structured, grammatically correct and correctly spelt English in less than about ten years at best. Fortunately you don't need to do this in most cases.

Nah, it's a piece of piss. Everyone I know who is fully billingual, or a linguist tells me that english is dead easy.
Ok, I AM an English teacher, I teach English to non-native speakers, no, it's not easy. And every linguist I met while studying to teach this language has said the same thing, English is a hard language to learn.

If you're going to another country, learn the damned language.
Learning a damned language takes a long time. I spent five years getting to the point where I'm proficient in German. And I've only been there once. If someone were to learn a nations native language for a trip there, the amount of effort put in is disproportionate to the tangible benefits received.

Let's say I'm going to Russia, first and only time in my entire life and it's only for two weeks. After this one instance, I will never go to Russia, or have any certainty of interacting with a Russian in Russian ever again. Spending the amount of time and effort it would take to learn Russian just to be there for two weeks is disproportionate to the total benefits of doing so. Let's be realistic here.

Nah, it's a piece of piss. Everyone I know who is fully billingual, or a linguist tells me that english is dead easy.

*ahem* What kind of linguists have you been talking to?

Your comment - 'me hungry. food?' could be made in any number of languages, following the same basic simplicity of structure. In fact, you wouldn't even need to speak to get that message across - just point to your stomach, open your mouth, and mime chewing. Same thing. So, by your argument, we don't even /need/ to speak to each other; we can just gesticulate and get our message across.

Yah, that was kinda my point. But you said it better. BTW, did you read my reply to you about piss christ?

Yes I did but I was too knackered to reply at the time. (We do have a time difference I would guess. It is 01:43 now here) I read it, and thank you for the detailed explanation and the image. I am thoroughly undecided about the value of such work, so maybe I will create another thread or dig that one back up at some point.

The point is that you can teach someone to communicate their basic needs and desires in about three hours if they want to learn it. You can not teach someone to write fluent, well structured, grammatically correct and correctly spelt English in less than about ten years at best. Fortunately you don't need to do this in most cases.
You can teach anyone those basic needs and commands within three hours in any language. However, that does not make you communitive. I've mastered basic Japanese phrases, doesn't do me a lot of good when shopping for an iPod at the local YamadaDenki.

My students also know basics, but still get confused when I ask them where they're from

Maybe it's easy enough to pick up a few stock phrases in other languages - that's certainly the extent of my German, Japanese, Italian and Spanish - but to really learn to communicate in, or read English would not be an easy matter.

A fun bit: I can't remember where I first saw this pointed out, but think of 'ough' - pronounced differently in: tough, brought, bough, though ... and other ways that aren't springing to the top of my mind right now.

This is why English is fun. :)

*ahem* What kind of linguists have you been talking to?

Your comment - 'me hungry. food?' could be made in any number of languages, following the same basic simplicity of structure. In fact, you wouldn't even need to speak to get that message across - just point to your stomach, open your mouth, and mime chewing. Same thing. So, by your argument, we don't even /need/ to speak to each other; we can just gesticulate and get our message across.

Well my mother for one, who is fully fluent in french, german, italian and english. She also has an honours degree in latin/ancient greek. And she spent most of her career teaching EFL/ESL.

I fully understand that a true mastery of english requires knowing the difference between "due to" and "owing to": I also understand that these kinds of things are not needed to communicate meaningfully.

Pray tell, can you say "me hungry, food" in french, and have it make any sense whatsoever?

*ahem* What kind of linguists have you been talking to?

Your comment - 'me hungry. food?' could be made in any number of languages, following the same basic simplicity of structure. In fact, you wouldn't even need to speak to get that message across - just point to your stomach, open your mouth, and mime chewing. Same thing. So, by your argument, we don't even /need/ to speak to each other; we can just gesticulate and get our message across.

Well that was actually my comment. I am bilingual, I am a teacher of English as a foreign language, at all levels from pre teens through to doctorate students and senior corporate executives.
Yes one could communicate "Me hungry" by gesture, but how does one gesture the question of "food?" The question was there deliberately. What is being communicated is a suggestion for an action, actually quite a complex linguistic act, but one that is easily handled in naïve English.

Try it in Portuguese (my other language)

Eu fome, comida?

It appears that it works, but it does not. Fome is "hunger" not hungry, there is no state verb for hungry in portuguese, just a state adjective which demands that a verb be used with it. There is no verb here at all. I can understand it as I can mistranslate it, but a non English speaker would be more than slightly puzzled by the utterance.

... and drought, bought, thought - not to mention taught, brought ...

And then there's the classic 'which hair' one: hair, here, hear, or hare. In NZ English, they're all pretty much pronounced the same as well.

Yes I did but I was too knackered to reply at the time. (We do have a time difference I would guess. It is 01:43 now here) I read it, and thank you for the detailed explanation and the image. I am thoroughly undecided about the value of such work, so maybe I will create another thread or dig that one back up at some point.

No prob. And if you don't like it, fair enough. Obviously, it is more resonant for those who are deeply religious - especially for south american catholics. I just wanted people to see that it could not be dissmissed as trivial or easy. That's all.

(Frankly, I am not a huge fan of serrano myself, as I think I pointed out in the thread, but I do think his work is legitimate art.) /hijack.

When I went to California, mostly everyone spoke Spanish, even in the Hotel I was staying at. Now the thing is, people I could actually communicate with mostly said they immigrated from Mexico or Latin America; now what this says is that the majority of Bilingual Americans are actually landed immigrants. As for caucasians who were bilingual, I met one, and Australian man working in a shop, he spoke Spanish to the people there before us, and English to my brother and I, once again, an immigrant.

You can teach anyone those basic needs and commands within three hours in any language. However, that does not make you communitive. I've mastered basic Japanese phrases, doesn't do me a lot of good when shopping for an iPod at the local YamadaDenki.

My students also know basics, but still get confused when I ask them where they're from

You can not in a complex language where you have subjunctive moods, fourteen conjugated tenses in total, gendered nouns with the gender at times being the only semantic clue, and all the common verbs being irregular. It is possible in about 15 hours under those circumstances. i.e. five times harded to learn.

I would suggest that If you have learnt the basic phrases in Japanese and still can not buy an iPod, there is a confidence problem more than a linguistic one. (You must have seen this with your students.) I went through that here in Brazil. Because I did not have the same command of Portuguese when I arrived as I have of English I lacked confidence in my ability to obtain the results I wanted. Then I saw that young children got what they wanted with noi more language ability than I had, so I plucked up my courage, prepared to be laughed at, and tried. It worked.

... and drought, bought, thought - not to mention taught, brought ...

And then there's the classic 'which hair' one: hair, here, hear, or hare. In NZ English, they're all pretty much pronounced the same as well.

homonyms don't make a language hard. Even I know that no cantonese speaker likes the number four, and I don't even speak a word of cantonese.

I actually like the NZ accent - long live the schwa! I guess every language has those, like ete (been/summer) in French, and no, I can't figure out how to do the accents.

I've been trying to mistranslate 'Me hunger. Food?' into French for a good 10 minutes now, and as Alien Born pointed out re Portuguese, it doesn't quite work, as 'faim' is also hunger. 'J'ai faim; avez-vous quelque chose a manger?' would be correct, but 'moi faim, nourriture?' translates as 'me hunger, food?' with hunger as a noun, not a verb.

I'm thinking too hard for a Friday.

Yes one could communicate "Me hungry" by gesture, but how does one gesture the question of "food?" The question was there deliberately. What is being communicated is a suggestion for an action, actually quite a complex linguistic act, but one that is easily handled in naïve English.

It's a valid point, and to be honest I don't have anywhere near the experience in linguistics to argue against you (I'm only in my second year).
One point I would like to make is that English is a very homogenised language; I have heard arguments advancing the idea that it is essentially a Creole.

homonyms don't make a language hard. Even I know that no cantonese speaker likes the number four, and I don't even speak a word of cantonese.

Well, originally I was pointing out the different sounds for 'ough' - if you were a non-native English speaker confronted with any of these words (drought, thought, enough etc) you wouldn't know how to pronounce it.

I think I originally read this in a Bill Bryson language book. But anyway, how would you pronounce 'chough' (it's a small bird)?

homonyms don't make a language hard. Even I know that no cantonese speaker likes the number four, and I don't even speak a word of cantonese.

This is true; complexity doesn't tend to come into it at this level. Phonology can cause some problems, but it's not insurmountable. Morphology ups the ante a little, but I think the real issues arise with syntax and semantics. /That/ is where English decides to spit the dummy and just dance around in its soiled nappies.

Well, originally I was pointing out the different sounds for 'ough' - if you were a non-native English speaker confronted with any of these words (drought, thought, enough etc) you wouldn't know how to pronounce it.

I think I originally read this in a Bill Bryson language book. But anyway, how would you pronounce 'chough' (it's a small bird)?

I would guess "chuff", but that is only a guess. I doubt, however, that ignorance of its pronunciation is a significant handicap to the majority of english speakers.

I think I originally read this in a Bill Bryson language book. But anyway, how would you pronounce 'chough' (it's a small bird)?

I would guess 'choff', but that's just a guess ...

This is true; complexity doesn't tend to come into it at this level. Phonology can cause some problems, but it's not insurmountable. Morphology ups the ante a little, but I think the real issues arise with syntax and semantics. /That/ is where English decides to spit the dummy and just dance around in its soiled nappies.

True that. I once suffered a car trip where fellow passangers discussed the difference between the meaning of "where did the chairs go?" and "where have the chairs gone?"

I can't honestly say I followed what they were talking about.

True that. I once suffered a car trip where fellow passangers discussed the difference between the meaning of "where did the chairs go?" and "where have the chairs gone?"

I can't honestly say I followed what they were talking about.

Oh Gawd, I think I do ...

You can not in a complex language where you have subjunctive moods, fourteen conjugated tenses in total, gendered nouns with the gender at times being the only semantic clue, and all the common verbs being irregular. It is possible in about 15 hours under those circumstances. i.e. five times harded to learn.

I would suggest that If you have learnt the basic phrases in Japanese and still can not buy an iPod, there is a confidence problem more than a linguistic one. (You must have seen this with your students.) I went through that here in Brazil. Because I did not have the same command of Portuguese when I arrived as I have of English I lacked confidence in my ability to obtain the results I wanted. Then I saw that young children got what they wanted with noi more language ability than I had, so I plucked up my courage, prepared to be laughed at, and tried. It worked.
It takes you 15 hours to teach a basic phrase? I'm talking about the tourist handbook type phrases.

With English I run into fun with sounds as well as English grammar, mainly how English grammar can be changed around, which can alter the meaning of the sentance. Intonation and rythm, very important in English, also makes a big difference.

Hell, even directions (Yes, you can teach "I go park. Where park?" but can they understand "You go up this street, turn left, go down a few blocks and you'll see it"?).

And the iPod wasn't from lack of trying. It was more me making the request of a sales rep, and getting a lot of Japanese in return that I didn't understand. After talking for 5 minutes, the rep found an English speaker who told me the iPods were on back order and would take 6 to 8 weeks to get if I ordered one. The issue I have with English education in Japan is that they teach English scripts, which is fine, if the native speaker followed the script. However, we don't do that and when it deviates you find out how little worth those basic words are.

Oh Gawd, I think I do ...

Well, being an idiot, I kinda see the world in black and white. i.e., Chair/No Chair. If no chair, then chair somewhere else. Query, where is somewhere else.

So I can't say it bothered me.

That being said, apparently it is quite a controversy. Something to do with the aurist case, or something. (Though I could be dead wrong about that, not really having paid much attention).

Correct, it is 'chuff'.

And no, it's not a word that comes up in everyday conversation. 'Enough' is, though. By the wacky rules of English, the previous sentence could be pronounced 'Enow is, thuff.' It's a source of confusion. Unless you're from 16th century Yorkshire, perhaps, in which case that could be the correct pronunciation...

And technically, chairs don't go anywhere 'cause they're inanimate. (hides)

It takes you 15 hours to teach a basic phrase? I'm talking about the tourist handbook type phrases.
I am not talking about a basic phrase. That method of teaching a language is problematic in the extreme, as you observed in your final paragraph here. I am talking about introducing the basic structure of the simple indicative mood, some useful verbs with their conjugations for present and past, the analytic simple future, and enough vocabulary to get them started. This takes about three hours with dedicated students in English (About 5 years if they are just there because their parents sent them and they don't care) It takes about 15 hours in a complex romance language. Japanese I can't say. I don't know the language, although I have heard that the grammar is very regular.

With English I run into fun with sounds as well as English grammar, mainly how English grammar can be changed around, which can alter the meaning of the sentance. Intonation and rythm, very important in English, also makes a big difference.
Every language has its problem sounds for speakers of another language. Where I am the Th combination is a problem in English as is the disassociation between sound and spelling. The flexibility of thew grammar only becomes a problem at advanced levels. For basic communication this is, if anything, a benefit. Intonation and rythm are important in any language. We describe it as "how the language is sung". The absence of accents causes problems here, but these types of things are trivial compared to the ease with which basic communication can be established in English, which is the whole point.

Hell, even directions (Yes, you can teach "I go park. Where park?" but can they understand "You go up this street, turn left, go down a few blocks and you'll see it"?).
Given five hours with a dedicated student, the student would unsderstand 90% of that, maybe 10% if I were to be teaching americanised English. There is nothing there that is gramatically difficult, it all follows the basic subject verb object pattern, all there is to confuse is a couple of phrasal verbs, the student can learn to ignore the prepositions if the phrase makes sense without them. "You go this street, turn left, go few blocks, you will see it" makes sense.

And the iPod wasn't from lack of trying. It was more me making the request of a sales rep, and getting a lot of Japanese in return that I didn't understand. After talking for 5 minutes, the rep found an English speaker who told me the iPods were on back order and would take 6 to 8 weeks to get if I ordered one. The issue I have with English education in Japan is that they teach English scripts, which is fine, if the native speaker followed the script. However, we don't do that and when it deviates you find out how little worth those basic words are.
That is a pedagogical problem not a language problem. The fixed script with multiple repetition method is a con. Students think they are learning because they can say some specific things, they are not because they can not use language in a generative way, which is the sign of understanding a language. It is a good method for language schools as it is easy to teach and keeps the students coming back, semester after semester. It is bad for the student and the teacher though.

It takes you 15 hours to teach a basic phrase? I'm talking about the tourist handbook type phrases.

With English I run into fun with sounds as well as English grammar, mainly how English grammar can be changed around, which can alter the meaning of the sentance. Intonation and rythm, very important in English, also makes a big difference.

Hell, even directions (Yes, you can teach "I go park. Where park?" but can they understand "You go up this street, turn left, go down a few blocks and you'll see it"?).

And the iPod wasn't from lack of trying. It was more me making the request of a sales rep, and getting a lot of Japanese in return that I didn't understand. After talking for 5 minutes, the rep found an English speaker who told me the iPods were on back order and would take 6 to 8 weeks to get if I ordered one. The issue I have with English education in Japan is that they teach English scripts, which is fine, if the native speaker followed the script. However, we don't do that and when it deviates you find out how little worth those basic words are.
One thing I loved about Japan, compared to other countries I've visited, is the way the restaurants are set up. Can't read the menu? No problem, just take the waitress to the front and point out which one of the displays you want to have cooked up. Lot's easier than ordering in India. Dal, Murgh? What the heck is all that?