Paul Derouda wrote:But it really depends on what you mean by "very high level".
pster wrote:I would say one must be able to read such texts with no more difficulty than other serious native students.
pster wrote: And yet the English they speak is extremely bland and colourless.
Paul Derouda wrote:I think this is not uncommon and I think many people who go to university reach this level, i.e. the ability read and understand even the smallest nuance in an foreign language (usually English). Native speakers of English are an exception here.
Paul Derouda wrote:I think this is not uncommon and I think many people who go to university reach this level, i.e. the ability read and understand even the smallest nuance in an foreign language (usually English). Native speakers of English are an exception here.
Victor wrote:Paul Derouda wrote:I think this is not uncommon and I think many people who go to university reach this level, i.e. the ability read and understand even the smallest nuance in an foreign language (usually English). Native speakers of English are an exception here.
Could you shed some light on that statement for us? What are native speakers of English an exception to?
pster wrote:You may well be right about English speakers. Although, I think that the French are clearly worse. In other words, native French speakers have even less interest in foreign languages than native English speakers.
Paul Derouda wrote:I think the situation with the French is changing quite dramatically. But there's some truth in that too.
Paul Derouda wrote:
I think it theoretically quite possible to be very fluent in three or even more languages, but I admit I don't know a single true trilingual. With the right kind of exposure from childhood, however, I think it's quite possible. The problem in real life is that there are often discontinuities, i.e. the family moves from one country to another and suddenly you have no one to speak your native language with. With commited parents who understand this sort of problem, I think it's still possible.
pster wrote:Even here, I'm sceptial. In some tri-lingual countries, such as Luxembourg, children are taught all three languages, but different languages are used for different subjects. Luxembourgish will be used in the early years. Then science is taught in German. Then history is taught in French. So they don't really learn the full vocabulary for any of the languages.
Scribo wrote:If I may be so bold to use myself as an example again (forgive me) I can sort of say...well, no. I had the startling realisation at one point that a lot of my words for kitchen utensils were...let's say an odd mishmash. Obviously it took 20 minutes to correct, but that would be a good example of discrepancy across languages. I don't think that disqualifies me from being multi-lingual. Discrepancies are bound to exist. Doesn't mean I can't read complex literature and debate things just because I was using the wrong word for strainer...
To re-use your example about car parts. I don't know them in any language, I've no real interest in cars. If I was exposed to autotalk I'd pick up names and terms for things in that language but not the others. That doesn't say much, just that I'm not in the right kind of environment.
A French peasant isn't going to know the same kind of Latinate high register vocabulary as a German-French University educated person would. So? It invalidates neither of them.
pster wrote:Jeez, I make such good arguments, now I don't even believe in true bilinguals.
pster wrote:There are easily 200 if not a 1000 things in the kitchen.
pster wrote:It is all very different from the kind of language mastery that is displayed in an Oxford seminar. I can remember times when everything hinged on the difference between a non-restrictive 'which' and a restrictive 'that'. I'm pretty sure the point was lost for any non-native speakers in the room. Yes, they could have it explained. But they couldn't follow it in real time.
pster wrote:[Musicians are pretty modest when compared to language users. They will readily admit that they don't play as well as any number of people. Yet language users can't pat themselves on the back enough.
Victor wrote:Can you think of any concrete examples of that, Pster? I'd like to think the ability to distinguish restrictive and non-restrictive relative pronouns was basic, not advanced, English. Or have I missed the point?
renaissancemedici wrote:My answer whould be, yes you can, but the goals cannot be the same for all of them. If you want perfection I think you should focus on one or two, and go for conversational level for the rest.
Prolixus Valens wrote:I really want Latin, Greek, French, and German for the study of philosophy. I don't really know what level is needed for that. For example, will JACT be enough to go right into reading Greek philosophical texts?
Cheiromancer wrote: ... [T]o get a deep enough feel for the language to get insights beyond what someone dependent on translation can do... that will take some work. A lot of reading of your target philosophers, and a lot of mulling over word choices and turns of phrase.
Prolixus Valens wrote:But will I need another textbook, if so which one would you suggest, or will it just take a lot of reading as you seem to be saying? If JACT isn't enough to read philosophy, then I don't understand how I can do a lot of reading of my target philosophers. Are you saying that this is only possible with a grammar and dictionary in hand? And why learn the languages if there is no benefit beyond what a translation will give you? I'm perplexed, but I appreciate your help.
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew and 85 guests