NationStates Jolt Archive

In a country that has more than one official language, what do you think the government's policy should be for teaching it citizens those languages? Should the government ensure near-fluency competency in all/both languages? or look at which languages are known in each region and teach the more popular? Or should the government just back away and let each school decide which languages it is going to teach? If knowledge in one is guarenteed and required in one language, should the same level of competancy have to be available in the other language(s)?

As long as public education is still around, I advocate teaching kids fluency in one primary language and putting considerable funds towards teaching the primary language in areas where people predominantly speak the secondary language. It only makes sense to focus on one language. People don’t have to write every sign twice; more command of the primary language is gained by the average person because of focus on it; etc.

As far as I know, most multilingual countries are divided up by language. Where you are in that country should determine what you learn. For example, in northern Switzerland, you learn German, but in the west, French.

As long as public education is still around, I advocate teaching kids fluency in one primary language and putting considerable funds towards teaching the primary language in areas where people predominantly speak the secondary language. It only makes sense to focus on one language. People don’t have to write every sign twice; more command of the primary language is gained by the average person because of focus on it; etc.

Actually, this is an outdated style of thought. People used to think that teaching a child more than one language was going to overload them. As can clearly be seen from children who learn more than one language, they're often smarter than those who don't and they have more oppurtunities, including oppurtunities to learn more languages.

The vital thing is that they are able to learn the language properly. In a multilingual country, the oppurtunity is there to learn two, if not more, languages to a fluent level. Take that oppurtunity and become smarter, because it's not everyone, everywhere who can learn a foreign language and expect to become fluent in it, even if they learnt it as a child.

As far as I know, most multilingual countries are divided up by language. Where you are in that country should determine what you learn. For example, in northern Switzerland, you learn German, but in the west, French.
Here in Wales, every child learns Welsh as a first or second language at primary and secondary schools, although roughly only 25% of the population speaks the langugage (due to English conquerors and their anti-Welsh laws of the past, and the large immigration of the English to Wales - particularly to the rural, Welsh-speaking areas of the land). The medium of education varies from school to school, but in the end it works out that the number of speakers are on the rise, therefore reversing the decline.

Undelia - your comments make on sense! Studies have proved that bilingual signage doesn't have any effect on people who don't understand one oif the languages, it just is fairer for those who do! Refusing bilingual signs is just another way governments try to put minorities down.

Here, in Spain, the official language in all the country is spanish/castellano/español, but there are some states/communities where there is a co-official language, such as català, euskera, galego, etc.

The idea is that people there learn both languages. The local is used as a local thing (administration), and spanish is used over their land. For social relationships it doesn't matter which they can use, they use both.

In Ireland every child has to learn Irish. You start at about 5 or 6 and keep on until about 18 or 19. Next week I have an oral Irish exam, which will count for 25% of my Irish result in the Leaving Certificate. Despite about 14 years of being thoought it I'm not all that fluent. I blame the education system on this, in primary school(5-12) we aren't taught to speak Irish, we just have to learn off verbs and vocabulary and the like. What's worse is the teahcer's often have differnt kinds of Irish from one year to the next, depending from where they're from. There are four main kinds of Irish, Cuige Uladh, Cuige Mumhan, Cuige Laighean and Cuige Connacht, I'm sure I've had a teacher that spoke each of them.

What's worse is the teahcer's often have differnt kinds of Irish from one year to the next, depending from where they're from. There are four main kinds of Irish, Cuige Uladh, Cuige Mumhan, Cuige Laighean and Cuige Connacht, I'm sure I've had a teacher that spoke each of them.

That's why in Spain there aren't andalusian/canarian teachers in the primary education, thought... hey, you enlightened me, I just realized that.

Here, in Spain, the official language in all the country is spanish/castellano/español, but there are some states/communities where there is a co-official language, such as català, euskera, galego, etc.

The idea is that people there learn both languages. The local is used as a local thing (administration), and spanish is used over their land. For social relationships it doesn't matter which they can use, they use both.

That's a lot like Germany. Germans learn High German, their dialect, and often English and French as well.

That's why in Spain there aren't andalusian/canarian teachers in the primary education, thought... hey, you enlightened me, I just realized that.

You are welcome grasshopper, now snatch the pebble from my hand[/zenmaster]
:p

In Hong Kong, the poor tings have to learn Cantonese, Putonghua (official name for Mandarin) and English, from pre-school up. That's basically four languages (no, I haven't made a mistake).
Lots of resources are thrown at the school system to do this, but unfortunately - due to the way they're taught here - I don't think it's that successful.

Main problem being that the way Chinese is taught (and prob the only way/best way it can be taught) is thru rote. It's not a phonic language - there's no way to know how to pronounce a character by looking at it (unlike english and pretty much every european language, where we can sound out a word we see). As far as I'm aware, there's no connection between what's written and what's spoken.
For example, the character for 'Bay' (or beach/coast etc) is made of something like 8 different sub characters (to indicate the idea of a 'beach'). It's pronounced in Cantonese 'Wan' (long 'a' sound, like you're saying 'wand' without the 'd'). It'd be like in English writing a word as "antidisestablishmentarianism", but pronouncing it "bob".

So they have to learn all the characters, as well as the sounds. In essence, they're learning 2 seperate languages. Add to that they have to learn Putonghua which has the same characters but different pronounciation. It's pretty difficult for them (and some schools also teach simple Chinese, so yet another character set to memorise!).

Herein lies the problem. Learning Chinese by rote is pretty effective (much like learning your times tables by rote is pretty much the best way). Learning English by rote is damn stupid. We have over a million words for a start, and close to as many rules how to structure a sentence. It's practically impossible to learn it by rote. That causes the local teachers here a lot of problems (and me a lot of aggravation, as they keep trying to teach it that way).

Govt policy is to have fluency in all 3 languages, but this doesn't take into consideration personal circumstances. One school I teach at is in the New Territories - which was pretty much nothing 30 years ago, but now has 3 million, mostly poor, mostly mainland Chinese living there. I'm the only foreigner at that estate. The students I have in my classes twice a fornight, that's the only time they speak english. Many of their parents can't speak any english whatsoever. For many of them, I'm the only foreigner they've ever met and apoken to - this in Hong Kong which has 70000 Westerners living there and 28 million visitors a year. In their other english classes, run by local teachers the main mode of delivery is in Cantonese. The local teacher explains everything to them in their own langauge. Suffice to say, their english ability is crap.

Personally, I think the HK govt needs to changes it's focus from demanding fluency to setting basic standards which are achievable.

As far as I know, most multilingual countries are divided up by language. Where you are in that country should determine what you learn. For example, in northern Switzerland, you learn German, but in the west, French.
Drawing linguistical boundaries on a map is just ignorant.

If there are two national languages, you could teach the basics. But no way in hell force everyone on a German area to speak German.

There are three boards of education in any Indian state. The state board which has all the subjects in the state language plus English studied as a language. The govt schools follow the state board.

The Matriculation board has all the subjects in English with the state language studied as a language plus other languages that can be studied as optional if offered. Almost all private schools are Matric.

The Central board is uniform throughout India and has all subjects in English with Hindi studied as a language (mandatory) plus other languages that can be studied as optional if offered.

Other than this, schools may chose to use any language they want if they can get recognition from the education board. It looks chaotic, but it works. There is no forcing of language.

In a country that has more than one official language, what do you think the government's policy should be for teaching it citizens those languages? Should the government ensure near-fluency competency in all/both languages? or look at which languages are known in each region and teach the more popular? Or should the government just back away and let each school decide which languages it is going to teach? If knowledge in one is guarenteed and required in one language, should the same level of competancy have to be available in the other language(s)?
All official languages should be taught. The primary language should depend on where the school is located, but a passable fluency in all official languages should be attained.

Then you run into a problem, where you have a place like Canada, which has two official languages. Eight provinces speak only English, one speaks just French and one is officially bilingual.

There is no practical use for French in places like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Ontario, given the dominance Anglophones and lack of Francophone population. The majority of all business transactions is in English, save for the places with a large Chinese population, like Toronto, which has some of its business done in Chinese (hell, we have instant tellers that have Chinese and English options depending where you go in the city).

In smaller countries, it makes sense because there is a greater chance of encountering someone who speaks another language.

Then you run into a problem, where you have a place like Canada, which has two official languages. Eight provinces speak only English, one speaks just French and one is officially bilingual.

There is no practical use for French in places like British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Ontario, given the dominance Anglophones and lack of Francophone population. The majority of all business transactions is in English, save for the places with a large Chinese population, like Toronto, which has some of its business done in Chinese (hell, we have instant tellers that have Chinese and English options depending where you go in the city).

In smaller countries, it makes sense because there is a greater chance of encountering someone who speaks another language.
While I do think that both languages should be known, this would do a nice job of preventing that from happening. I suppose though, teaching French in the Alantic Provinces could be effective. The provinces proximity to Quebec could allow Quebec to spread its Frenchness, and there smaller sizes would make things easier (read: babysteps). After I suppose French could move West. Ontario could be tough, but I think it would be rather smooth sailing until you get to Alberta. Parts of BC could be tough too, since Chinese, Korean and Punjabi (sic) are quite large languages here.