Ironically, many of the people who believe that people in the United States should all be fluent in English are the same people who make little to no effort to learn the language when they visit a non-English speaking nation (or decide not to visit such places at all).

I’m inclined to agree you on most everything, particularly the need to motivate students about language learning. I suspect that, like many things, this is a matter of supply and demand: if a critical mass wanted quality language instruction in school (at least for their kids), governments would find funding and teachers quickly enough. Alas, many native English speakers–I include Britons and other nationalities in this–have become arrogant about the spread of their native tongue.

I agree with that. Just as we can waste money on language courses that fail to deliver, the government (at any scale) can do the same with hiring teachers.

I think that a big problem we need to address – and this is maybe at least one thing they COULD spend money on and achieve early – is the attitude towards foreign languages and learning them. I benefited from my Spanish classes (which were probably just alright) because I got interested in learning Spanish and would take whatever I could get. But those who weren’t interested got practically nothing out of them. The interest and motivation is crucial. I read something the other day that people who don’t want to learn languages, won’t.

It’s sadly true.

P.S. Your sentence was perfect Vivo en California Norte. ¡Competemos en el número de hispanohablantes!

Un saludo.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I would definitely support spending money on programs that were well done, or on building more immersion schools. But if what we’re going to get is just an expansion of the piecemeal, poorly-taught foreign languages courses that unfortunately seem to be the status quo, then I’d rather not. I think the problems we see in foreign language instruction are just another symptom of the undervaluation of good teachers in this country—just throwing money at a problem doesn’t get very far without a shift in the underlying cultural attitude.

Necesito practicar mi español. Vivo en Houston—¡muchos hispanohablantes aquí!

I’ll let you guys play Count the Grammar Mistakes.

I also agree, though I lament the fact, that the US doesn’t do a good job in promoting the value of knowing another language.

I think that this will change, though, with increasing amounts of exposure to non-English speakers through the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, and so on. A lot of stuff that’s not in English is being created.

It’s a shame, though, really. I think that if Americans at large spoke foreign languages, we’d get along a bit better with other countries!

Hablo español por cierto.
(I speak Spanish, by the way.)

Jeg snakker også norsk. Så morsomt at du nevnte skandinaviske språk du.
(I also speak Norwegian. How funny that you mentioned Scandinavian languages!)

Anyway, let’s hope.

Kevin

That said, I don’t agree that early exposure is necessarily a waste of taxpayer money–not if the target language is (1) taught consistently through school, (2) taught well, and (3) there is significant non-classroom exposure. That is essentially how the Scandinavian countries essentially have entire populations of fluent English speakers.

All three of those elements, however, must be present. It doesn’t matter if you have weekly or daily instruction in a target language if you only learn it for a semester or a year–and then start learning a new language after that, as young American students are prone to do. Nor does twelve years of mandatory English instruction do a thing if it’s twelve years of crappy lessons by teachers who don’t know how to teach foreign languages–and sadly, this seems to be more common than one would hope. And even more than that, studying your target language but never using it means those skills will never grow: you need to be able to converse with native speakers, consume un-dubbed and un-subtitled media, and possibly even create your own stuff.

Now, is this possible? Of course; as I said, the Scandinavian countries have essentially already done so–and Chile (among other countries) is exploring how to make this fit into their own educational systems. In theory, the US could do it, too, and have students with foreign language proficiency–but I’m not holding my breath. Why?

1. As arrogant as it sounds, we already speak the lingua franca. It’s easier when there is an obvious language to teach, as it is for most of the world. It’s a lot easier to develop teaching programs for staff when you don’t have to divide your resources between languages. And it’s a lot easier to convince your students you need to pay attention when it’s clear they’ll need the language to succeed in their careers.
2. We don’t have a centralized education system, with an empowered national Ministry of Education. To do this right, you need a long-term commitment (and follow up) with assured funding. Not that certain local school districts couldn’t do it if they really wanted, but it’s a much easier investment for national governments. Particularly for governments less prone to meddling with education policy with every change of the political winds.
3. The US market for non-English media is still relatively small. Though English has lost some of its primacy over the years, most foreign books are still translated and movies are dubbed. It’s better now thanks to cable/satellite and the internet, but it’s still considered the norm to consume domestic English-language media. Thus, it requires an effort to access media in the target language, and to gain familiarity in the usage patterns not usually taught in school–which also slows learning. Fortunately, this is the one most prone to market forces and thus the easiest to change; think about all the (ahem) language blogs and podcasts out there on the internet.

So, maybe one day. But, honestly, I’m planning on sending my future kids to immersion schools, rather than hoping things improve before then. Hope springs eternal, but I’m too bloody impatient for that.

In terms of language acquisition, the window of opportunity for “native fluency” ends shortly after puberty. After that, there is actually a shift in how the brain receives new linguistic information.

While this is commonly bandied about, no part of this statement is actually true. What is lost is the ability to acquire language effortlessly—just by hearing other people speak in another language. However, someone who begins learning a language at 16 or older can absolutely achieve native fluency, and even native accent. It just takes effort.

And it’s not true that there’s some sort of shift at puberty. It’s a gradual shift that might begin as early as age 6.

Kids don’t need to start learning a new language in kindergarten, but it becomes much more difficult if they start it in high school or even college.

As for exposure to the language… that’s where parenting comes in. Many children’s television shows have Spanish speaking characters. Most large cities have cultural gatherings, such as the Holiday Folk Fair in Milwaukee. There are even communities such as Chinatown or Little Italy where English is not the primary language. One doesn’t need to spend billions of government money to “expose” kids to different languages and cultures. You just need to know where to look.

Just to clarify, are you talking about learning spoken language only or is literacy included?