Five myths about languages and how to learn them

Update 30 August 2008: This entire post is now also available en español.

Map of countries by GDP per capita, often a better way to ascertain the financial usefulness of a language than the total speaking population or geographic extent.

My last post on Norwegian being the easiest language for English speakers garnered quite a bit of attention, and in the midst of all of the responses and comments I noticed quite a bit of false information about languages and how to learn them that you hear quite a bit both on and offline, and I decided to write a fairly detailed post on some of the major myths about languages, and how and why to learn them. I started out with seven but two of them were similar to another two and thus ended up with five. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time on the subject has probably heard a lot of these, and many believe them to be true. Here they are, in no particular order:



Myth #1: Languages are all difficult to learn / languages are all pretty much equally difficult to learn.

This is one of the biggest myths out there, and it comes from stories heard from others or personal experiences when learning a language. The most common example given to back up this assertion is that someone (often a friend or a friend of a friend) spent some time in another country like Norway or France, and found out that learning a language takes a huge amount of time, and since Norwegian and French are supposed to be not all that challenging to learn, that all languages are therefore difficult to learn.

Stop right there though: time-consuming does not equal difficult. All languages are time-consuming, no exceptions there. Even constructed languages like Occidental, Interlingua and Ido that take very little time to learn the grammar still take time to learn all the vocabulary you will need to have a conversation without having to check a dictionary, and it takes a while to get used to the flow of a sentence, what words are used in what contexts, and so on. This does not make them difficult, however. The difference between a language that is difficult to learn and one that is simply time-consuming is the difference between typing up a 100-page document in a language that uses Roman letters (time-consuming and perhaps tedious but certainly not difficult), and typing up the same document in some other script, like Bulgarian or Georgian. It's the same document, but all of a sudden you have to hunt and peck for every key, and it takes you about a week before you can even type a single word with any measure of confidence. That's the difference between the two.

Or if you like, it's the difference between walking 100 kilometres on a gradual slope versus walking the same distance on a steeper slope. Either way it's a pretty long walk:

Here's our stickman a year or so into learning Norwegian. He didn't think it was going to be such a long walk, and he spends a lot of time learning vocabulary and trying to practice every day. However, all this new vocabulary and practice fits in very nicely with the English grammar that already exists in his head, and he's never really shook his fist at the textbook and asked whether he's ever going to figure out what makes this language tick. He knows that most of what he needs is to keep learning and keep finding ways to practice, to make sure he doesn't forget to pay attention to when a verb is common (en) or neuter (et), and other small points like small differences in word order, remembering that Norwegians will use av (of) sometimes where English uses from (Norwegian fra), and other points that have more to do with paying close attention than trying to learn a whole new language from the ground up. The hardest part for him was actually just setting up an environment where he was able to practice the language every day, but luckily he has set up a schedule where he is able to converse with people in Norwegian only for at least a full hour every day in exchange for helping them in their studies for the next hour. Sometimes he just pretends to be Norwegian online too and gets a lot of practice there.

Here's the next 100 km journey:

Here's our second stickman, and he's studying Arabic. Look at him go. You'll notice he also has the same distance to travel from left to right (distance along the x-axis, that is), but this time the slope is much steeper because he is dealing with a grammar, writing system, culture and everything else that he's not familiar with. That doesn't necessarily mean he's having a worse time though; for all we know Stickman 2 may enjoy the challenge of Arabic and would find himself bored with Norwegian. If he's good at languages he might also arrive at the right side of the image before Stickman 1, but if we are to assume that they both have the same linguistic skill and motivation (and therefore time put into study), Stickman 1 is definitely going to arrive first.

Another way to visualize how not all languages are equally difficult to learn: you're in German class, and your next few chapters are about genders. Now all of a sudden let's imagine that German no longer has three genders but has only one. Would the textbook grow in size or shrink? Or let's say the cases disappear too and you don't have to learn this part anymore:

Der Hund beißt den Mann. The dog bites the man.
Den Mann beißt der Hund. The dog bites the man.

Because now the only correct way to say it is Die Hund beißt die Mann. Would the language be easier to learn? Most definitely. Would it now no longer be time-consuming? Not at all. That's the difference between the two.



Myth #2: Language (insert language here) is difficult because it has dialects.

This myth is one of the first to pop up in forums and other sites online when a discussion on learning languages appears. Somebody will come along and say "you think my language is easy to learn, but we have some crazy dialects that nobody can understand!", and in some cases succeeds in driving the prospective student away because of this. The thing is though, almost every language has dialects. Not only that, but most of these dialects are on regular television as well, nationwide television. That means that when you're living in a country you'll come into contact with these dialects quite often.

In fact, and this is important, a certain familiarity with one or more major dialects is almost always an absolute must when learning a language. Exceptions to this are few. We are not talking about complete fluency in a dialect, but an understanding of how it differs from the 'norm' and some of the major expressions used in it. Generally, the rule goes as follows: if a dialect is known well enough that even a person that has grown up using only the standard version of a language can understand some of it, the student of the language will need to understand it to a similar extent as well.

One good example is a show in Japan called Koi no karasawagi (恋の空騒ぎ) hosted by a comedian named , Akashiya Sanma (明石家 さんま), who is pure comedic genius. He was raised in Nara though, and that means he speaks in a Kansai dialect, something you'll rarely find in a textbook. To learn the dialect you generally have to go to Japan and live there or watch a lot of tv until you get used to it. Shows with people talking in the dialect are on tv all the time, and when you go to Osaka people will generally be unable to switch to standard Japanese without a bit of effort, but does this make people stop learning Japanese or lower the value of the language? Of course not.

Here in Korea you'll find the Gyeongsangnam-do (Busan) dialect everywhere, in shows like Gag Concert (the corner 대화가 필요해 in particular), a ton of movies, tv, everywhere. And yet nobody recommends against learning Korean for that reason.

Then there is the very obvious example of a language such as English with multiple standards, most of which people are used to to a certain extent, which is why the average English speaker has no problem understanding a range of standards from CNN to Dr. Phil to BBC to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (most parts there anyway) to the dialogue in Blood Diamond to Crocodile Dundee, Once, and all the rest. This is certainly equal to the number of major dialects you'll find in a lot of countries, and yet nobody is discouraging students from learning English for this reason.

The fact is that every language comes with a certain range of ways to use it, and only certain languages like Icelandic have managed to exist with largely a single standard. The only exceptions to this rule about dialects might be languages that are used as second languages in countries where most people have a different first language, such as Indonesian, Tok Pisin, and so on. Languages like these often vary by region to a much larger extent than simple dialects, so it's only with these languages that I'd put any credence into the idea that it might be hard to make use of due to being used differently region by region.

The same thing goes with slang, which every language has. Slang is pretty much just a dialect that exists among common ages and occupations instead of regions, and only those that have common interests are interested in learning and using it.



Myth #3: You need a perfect accent to be fluent in a language.

Myth #2 and myth #3 actually cancel each other out, which is interesting because I've actually seen them both brought up in the same post as proof that a language is impossible to learn. "My friend has been learning (language) and it's so hard because it has so many dialects and he still can't get the accent right after a year." First of all, a dialect is composed of the following:

• A different accent from the official language, and
  
• Different vocabulary from the official language.

Now, if a language has so many dialects, and therefore so many accents, what is this 'perfect accent' that a person needs to have to be fluent? Do the speakers of the dialect not count as fluent speakers as a result? A language with a number of dialects implies a language with a certain range of acceptable pronunciation that deviates from the norm, which means that you don't need a perfect textbook accent to be fluent.

This is not to say that you can claim fluency with a horrendous accent, of course. No English speaker could claim fluency in French with a very English-sounding "je voodray oon bilett see voo play". A certain amount of accent, however, when not to the extent that it impedes comprehension at all, can sound very nice. You can also become the governor of California with an accent, so the idea that a person needs to speak in the exact same way as native speakers of the language is absurd. An accent is fine as long as you can be understood without any difficulty, and as long as it doesn't result in you making mistakes like saying bitch for beach. Enough exposure to the language will help you avoid that.



Myth #4: Everybody in (country x) is good at English so it's a useless language to learn. / That language is only spoken by (insert number) million people so it's useless to learn.

Huge myth right here. I can't count the number of comments I saw on the Norwegian language post that were of this nature. Let's take this myth apart, piece by piece.

The idea that a language is useless to learn because most people can get by with English is based on using a language for its most basic of uses: getting from point A to point B, talking about simple concepts, and so on. Now the first use here, getting from point A to point B, can and is accomplished almost without language most of the time. Getting a train ticket from one city to another can be accomplished by saying the name of the city, handing over the money, and nodding or shaking your head when they ask whether you want a one-way or two-way ticket. Buying a newspaper can be done by handing over money without a word, coffee at Starbucks is always easy to order, hand gestures work from time to time, and people in general are kind to travelers so the actual amount of language that has to be learned to explore a country is close to nothing.

The second basic use for a language, talking about simple concepts, is admittedly one place where the above claim is true. Simple questions like "How old is this statue", "Can people who are 19 drink beer in your country" and the conversations that come from that are easily done in English in most cases.

However, people do not put the time into languages that they do in order to carry out simple conversations. The largest motivations for learning a language include: love of a country and its culture, friends and family, and career advancement: i.e. money. So the question is: is a language spoken by 5 million people (again using Norwegian as an example) necessarily less useful for one's pocketbook than a language spoken by many more? Let's use Spanish as an example of the latter.

Spanish is spoken by some 500 million people as an official language in 21 countries. Norwegian is spoken by 5 million people in one country and is closely related to two others with a total population of 20 million for the three. Spanish obviously has a lot more content than Norwegian, including tv, news, music, just about anything. But what about the financial benefit for a person learning Spanish?

It's never bad for one's career prospects to learn another language, but Spanish is a bit overrated in this area for two reasons:

• On a per capita basis, Spanish isn't all that remarkable. The countries it is spoken in are generally places that are not able to offer much more opportunity than one would have back home (we'll say the US or Canada). Even Spain has a lower GDP per capita than the US and Canada.
  
• In the US as well there's a huge Spanish-speaking immigrant population, meaning that there are already a huge number of jobs that pay less than the average, and yet have a person already bilingual in Spanish and English filling it.

In other words, supply is high and demand is relatively low. How about Norwegian? Well, Norway has a GDP per capita of $83,922, almost twice that of the United States. The number of jobs is scarcer than the jobs you could get using Spanish, but then again Wal-Mart employs far more than Silicon Valley but the latter is definitely the place most people would rather work.

(and no, I'm not implying that Spanish is the Wal-Mart of languages. I like Spanish a lot.)

This brings us back to the first part of myth #3, that people in Norway already speak good English so learning the language would be useless. Let's take a look at this job posting for example for Opera (the company that makes the browser of the same name), based in Norway:

Requirements

• Must be able to travel 25% of the time
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills
• English required, multiple languages are a plus
• Excellent teamwork skills
• Knowledge of Web technologies and mobile Web
• Bachelor's degree
• Minimum 3-5 years professional experience

As you can see, Norwegian alone won't get you the job; however, in addition to multiple languages being a plus, the number one concern a company has when hiring employees from overseas is whether they will be able to live in the country over the long term. Is the prospective employee really going to enjoy living here? Will he or she be able to adapt to the culture? Will he or she get along with the other employees? Knowledge of the language of the country you are applying for the job in is a huge benefit in these interviews, because the prospective employer already knows that you have put in a large amount of time into studying the language, and thus aren't just applying to overseas positions on a whim.

To conclude here: in terms of basic communication with hundreds and millions of people Norwegian loses out, but in terms of making more money, which is why a lot of people study languages in the first place, a language like Norwegian is possibly even a more useful tool than a widely-known language like Spanish or Portuguese. This punch a language packs per capita is also why a language like German remains so usefull careerwise in spite of being used in a limited geographical area: every country that uses German is stable and has a highly developed economy.

Myth #5: Children are really good at learning languages, adults are not.

I'm always surprised that this myth is brought up so much, because basic math alone tells us that this isn't the case. Let's pick a random language on Wikibooks: we'll go with Turkish. Turkish is a so-called Category II language, meaning that it will take an estimated 1100 class hours to learn the language.

Okay then, how long does it take a child to learn their mother tongue? People learning a difficult language are often amazed at how a child of five years old or so can speak the language so well. Okay, but how many hours of practice has the child had so far? Subtracting eight hours a day for sleep (and even that's being generous since people dream in their native tongues all the time while asleep) and the first six months of life when a baby is pretty much in a daze, we have a total of 26,280 hours of exposure to the language so far for this child. Babies also have no responsibilities whatsoever besides talking in and being talked to in the language, and they never have to go out of their way to practice it. Their life is a total and complete immersion in this language. Of course they can speak it after 26,280 hours of immersion. So could any adult put into the same situation.

The problem with learning a language as an adult is simply one of:

• Motivation: you have to want to learn the language enough to stick with it over a period of time;
• Sacrifice: you have to want to learn it enough that you'll change your schedule to study it, meaning less time for other things you might otherwise do with the time;
• Learning to let go of your L1: the one definite advantage children have over adults is that they are good at accepting reality as is. Some adult students have a very hard time coming to the realization that they are not simply learning a different code to express their L1 (1st language or mother tongue) but rather a completely different language. Some never get past this.

The other clear advantage children have over adults is pronunciation and tone. However, as far as I know there have been no comparative studies made where an adult is thrown into complete and utter immersion that children are subject to, and I seriously doubt that an adult that is put into the same situation -- 24 hours of immersion a day, no contact whatsoever with the outside world and his native tongue, having to talk in and being talked to in the language by family, friends and schoolmates -- would still have a problem with pronunciation and tone after 26,280 hours of this. Adults simply have a much harder time breaking away from the responsibilities they have, most of which require using their mother tongue, and that's why children seem to be such gifted students of languages when really they are nothing special in this regard.

Two last points:

• 5 to 6 year olds have a working vocabulary of 2,500 to 5000 words. That works to about one word every 5 or 10 hours, a shoddy performance for any person immersed in a language all day.
• Children take forever to learn to write. Adults can familiarize themselves with an alphabet in about a week, and can read at a fair speed within a month or two, and that's not even their native tongue. Children spend far longer learning to read and write in the language they already use every day.