[Iftikhar]

European and Community Languages

The class of 2006 is poorly equipped to take on the globalised world, despite of their high grades. Less than five percent take foreign languages. The UK recently came bottom out of 28 countries in language ability, according to a study. Learning of languages widens the mental horizons. The British education system is depriving its citizens of the possibility of all the wonderful and useful things that come with a foreign language. An English only education leaves our children at a linguistic and cultural disadvantage. It leaves our children behind. Learning a second language at an early age has a positive effect on intellectual growth and enriches and enhances a child’s mental development. It leaves students with more flexibility in thinking. It opens the door to other culture and helps a child understand and appreciate people from other countries. It increases job opportunities in many careers where knowing another language is a real asset. Some research suggests that bilingual children are more creative and better at solving complex problems. Bilinguals outperform verbal and non-verbal tests of intelligence. Researchers from University College London found out that learning a second language “boots” brain power. It is a well known fact, if somebody refuses to learn someone else’s language; they implicitly reject the other’s culture and their way of life. Schools need to teach children maths and three languages from nursery to A-level. In western European countries, all children are supposed to learn two languages along with the mother tongue at early stages. Younger children are more receptive to foreign languages than older pupils and are able to absorb the rhythms and structures more easily. It is essential that enthusiasm for languages could be nurtured earlier.

The largest ethnic minority groups in British schools are children of Pakistani origin: a community often accused of resisting assimilation and integration. Ann Cryer, the MP for Keighley blamed Imams for not speaking English. She should blame British schooling for not teaching Urdu/Arabic to Pakistani children, thus depriving them of understanding the Sermons in Arabic/Urdu. They are unable to enjoy the beauty of Urdu/Arabic literature and poetry. Imams are not part of the problem rather than the solutions. There is a proposal to teach Urdu as a compulsory language instead of French and German in British schools. The British Government is urged to remove the requirement in the National Curriculum that children between the ages of 11-14 study at least one European language. The linguistic abilities of large number of Muslim children were being ignored because they had to learn another European language as well as mastering English. The Government must promote the status of Urdu language instead of languages of European origin. Tim Benson, head of Nelson primary school in Newham said that the “nationalistic curriculum failed to recognize the staggering array of linguistic abilities and competencies” in schools such as his, where the pupils spoke more than 40 languages. The linguistic dexterity of families speaking an array of languages was celebrated but the “awesome achievements” of children mastering three or four languages were barely recognised by the education system. Social and emotional education comes with your own language-literature and poetry. A DFES document clearly states that children should be encouraged to maintain and develop their home languages. A study shows that bilingualism is a positive benefit to cognitive development and bilingual teacher is a dire necessity and is a role model. The price of ignoring children’s bilingualism is educational failure and social exclusion. Bilingualism could be developed by bringing a partner from Pakistan. The kids will get better at both languages. One will speak English while the other will speak Urdu.

A language is not just a series of words and communications; it’s the product of a culture of people. Language is a product of history and culture. The more we destroy our linguistic diversity by only using English, the more we lose the diversity of our cultural and historical identities. Erasing languages is erasing history. Erasing history leaves people without identity and a sense of identity is what makes us human. Learning languages teach us different ways of thinking, a worthwhile and enlightening mental exercise. Languages keep us apart from animal world. Human diversity is a part of God’s plan of creation. It is something to be encouraged as a social good, not something to be annihilated in a melting pot of national cohesion. If we force the whole world to speak only one language, we are forcing the whole world to lose its own identity and culture. Languages make the world a better place. It helps us to realize that we are all different and hopefully to be more tolerant with our differences.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

[Blue_Nose]

In order to maintain my individuality, I'll be creating my own form of textual communication, which I'll be introducing in this thread:

Wfeot #bdj
33
4(*
444
Ewqq@@! askkal 4jje0 HbVV P-3nd fe Wues J$uu
g
....
.............................................
.
[]
P{

Ah, I feel so diverse!

[Clogeroo]

English is a very dominate language though it has spread throughout the world due to the British Empire as well as the United States. When there is an estimated population of a billion speakers of English it would be hard to convince the native speakers to learn another language. As a second language French and Spanish are usually not a bad choice or if you really feel like it mandarin or even hindi. These languages have a significant population of speakers and would be worth learning due to the size of the speakers of it.

[GreatBriton]

English-speakers don't need to learn another language because English is THE lingua franca of the world. It's the modern day Latin. That's one reason why the British, Americans and other English speakers aren't good at learning other languages.


Whilst on the topic of languages.......





Why do American publisher translate Harry Potter books from proper English (i.e. British English) to the simplified, ugly "American English" used in the United States?

e.g. flavour becomes flavor.

Even though he's American, the writer of this artucle prefers to have them written in British English......




This article appeared in the New York Times


by Peter H. Gleick (an American)



BERKELEY, Calif. -- My family, like so many others, was excited about Saturday's release of yet another Harry Potter book. But although there are many legitimate reasons for praising the series -- the exciting plots, the new young readers being drawn to books, the quality of the writing -- I am disappointed about one thing: the decision by Scholastic, publisher of the American edition, to translate the books from "English" into "American."

Scholastic even went so far as to change the title of the first Harry Potter book from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Why? Were the editors worried that some people wouldn't buy the book because they couldn't understand it in its original language? Were they concerned that some children would be confused by new words for otherwise familiar objects or actions?

I like to think that our society would not collapse if our children started calling their mothers Mum instead of Mom. And I would hate to think that today's children would be frightened away from an otherwise thrilling book by reading that the hero is wearing a jumper instead of a sweater.

Are we afraid that when presented with new vocabulary, children will shrink away? Or that alternative spellings of previously known words will make children (and adults) suddenly start spelling things wrong, sending school test scores falling?

A careful reading of both the English and the American editions of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" reveals three kinds of substitutions. The first are spelling differences: gray for grey, color for colour, flavor for flavour, pajamas for pyjamas, recognize for recognise and the like.

The second are differences in common words or phrases: pitch turns to field, sellotaped to taped, fortnight to two weeks, post to mail, boot of car to trunk of car, lorry to truck.

The third are metamorphoses of truly English experiences or objects into something different, but distinctly American: crumpets to English muffins, for example (a particular odious change, in my opinion).

My two sons didn't have any difficulty understanding the British version of the book sent to them by their aunt in London.

I admit to occasionally offering the meaning of a new word the first time it appeared, but don't we do that with every book we read to our children, or help them read to themselves?

Do we really want children to think that crumpets are the same as English muffins? Frankly, reading about Harry and Hermione eating crumpets during tea is far more interesting to an American than reading about them eating English muffins during a meal.

Are any books immune from this kind of devolution from English to "American" English? Would we sit back and let publishers rewrite Charles Dickens or Shakespeare? I can see it now: "A Christmas Song," "A Story of Two Cities," "The Salesman of Venice."

By protecting our children from an occasional misunderstanding or trip to the dictionary, we are pretending that other cultures are, or should be, the same as ours.

By insisting that everything be Americanized, we dumb down our own society rather than enrich it.

As for Harry Potter's latest adventures, my children and I will wait for the British version coming by mail.

nytimes.com
---------------------------------------

British version: "How are you today, Hermione?" asked Harry. "Very well. Thank you for asking," said Hermione

American version: "Yo, Hermione. Waz goin' down bitch?" said Harry." Yo dawg, imma go pop a cap in yo ass muthf***er," replied Hermione

[Arctic_Menace]

Since everyone wants to do business with Japan and China, Japanese and Chinese would be good languages to learn. I just know French ebcause I live in Canada. And Spanish, well, my Dad is from Ecuador, soooo......

[Circle-jack]

I have been all around Europe and never had a problem with the language, because all over the world English is "cool" to learn.

The schools here in Scotland offer a wide range of Languages, including Irish Gaelic, Gaelic, Urdu, Russian, German, Spanish, French........and there are probably a few more. The problem lies with the people. They know there is no real need to learn most languages fluently as they can survive in most of the world without ever needing anyother Language.

Does this make us ignorant? Maybe it does.

I myself try and learn the basics for when I go to a country, however most of the locals often laugh and then start speaking english. So recently I have decided to start learning my native language rather than that of different countries.

[natooke]

Here in Sweden all english TV programs are not dubbed, but have sub-titles. Which in many European countries they use voice overs or dubbing.

Students as young as 8 are being taught english, though my 2 have a huge advantage with their peers. I just wish if schools are going to make a effort (curriculum) with teaching a second language a) start the program much earlier i.e. playschool/kindergarden.

[PRH977]

In Europe, you'll find that most people and pretty much of all ages speak excellent English in the Scandinavian countries as well as in Holland (The Netherlands) and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium i.e. Flanders. In Germany it's mainly the young and young-ish people that speak pretty good English : I've noticed for one thing that unlike the other Germanic language-speaking countries of Europe, in Germany TV programmes from the US and the UK are rarely subtitled and nearly always dubbed.

It's spoken of course in Malta and Cyprus for historical reasons and I would imagine that a fair bit of Greece speaks pretty good English, given the thousands of Greek students that come to the UK every year to study either engineering (isn't there a surplus of engineers in Greece by now??!!) or computing.

Elsewhere in Europe, people like to think they speak good English but the different with northern Europe is often striking. I've often seen many amusing (in a way) scenes abroad where some hapless tourist from the UK / USA is trying to say what they want.

Looking at it all from a wider perspective, it's certainly not true that everyone speaks English......however you will get people eager to practice their English. Like in France 'ah you arre eeengleeesh, is vairy goood, non?'. If you speak French, it kind of feels strange to find yourself forced to speak English when in France. Personally, I'm someone who is fascinated by all things foreign, in particular languages, and enjoy guessing what someone is speaking. When I'm abroad, I also like to hear the local language around me (for example on the radio when driving around in a hire car), even if I can't understand it.

[PRH977]

..and as for the Brits (living in the UK as I do, although not being a Brit myself) it's their occasional insularity that can be annoying. Like seeing France as somewhere where you only go to stock up on cheap beer, wine and cigarettes, Germany as country that started two world wars and won won world cup, Spain, Greece and Portugal as countries where you go to in the summer for two weeks and lie on the beach without being bothered to explore any bit of the local area. Generalisations, I know, but it can seem that way sometimes.

[Firecat]

For sheer numbers, Mandarin is a good second language but it will be difficult to latin-based languages as it is tonal.

English speakers, I find, are reluctant to learn another language, feeling instead it is the responsibility of the other "lesser language-speakers" to learn English.


From a North American standpoint it is logical to learn French and Spanish along with English, but English-speakers are mostly too lazy to learn and resent very much being told they ought to, and further resent any rewards given to those who do.

In Europe I did very well with English and French - using predominantly English.

In Belgium I spoke French but interestingly, in France I was addressed in English. Whether that was attempted politeness or hauteur I do not know. I insisted on speaking French even though my accent marked me as Canadian.

I also found French useful in Turkey, much to my surprise.
In Spain I spoke French.

All in all, I don't see how one can truly feel connected with the world when travelling if you only speak one language.

My first priority in any country is to learn to order two beers. After that people are willing to help if you try.

[Firecat]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

In order to maintain my individuality, I'll be creating my own form of textual communication, which I'll be introducing in this thread:

Wfeot #bdj
33
4(*
444
Ewqq@@! askkal 4jje0 HbVV P-3nd fe Wues J$uu
g
....
.............................................
.
[]
P{

Ah, I feel so diverse!

If no one understands you it isn't communication now, is it?

[PRH977]

Firecat Firecat:

For sheer numbers, Mandarin is a good second language but it will be difficult to latin-based languages as it is tonal.

, in France I was addressed in English. Whether that was attempted politeness or hauteur I do not know. I insisted on speaking French even though my accent marked me as Canadian.

.

I'll remember that the next time I go to France, speak French and they answer me in English. Just carry on talking French. Having lived in France for five years and having maintained the language since by visits to the country and conversation classes I would like to think I can speak at least passable French!!

[Blue_Nose]

Firecat Firecat:

If no one understands you it isn't communication now, is it?

Maybe not, but maintaining my individuality is much more important to me.

Or, as we say in my native language,

293bb (3(3:s > yb3~~
)
(((
dsw2

[bossdog]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Since everyone wants to do business with Japan and China, Japanese and Chinese would be good languages to learn. I just know French ebcause I live in Canada. And Spanish, well, my Dad is from Ecuador, soooo......

Here is Bosnia and Herzegovina, English is now taught from grade 9 and up with German and Itilian as an elective.

I know enough of th elocal language to get what I need and carry on a small conversation.

The CIA World Fact book also says that Chinese ans Manarin are the most spoken languages BUT English is spoken in more countries.

Anyone pick up on the spam of the first post btw?

[Riyko]

In the United States or at least some states you're required to take 2 years of a foreign language. I took German (my first language) and American Sign Language. Just don't talk to me in German because I don't remember many words anymore since i've lived in the US. I had to learn English if I wanted to continue my education in the US.

GreatBriton
The reason that some words are changed is because we're taught that how they british spell words is wrong to us. I know in school if we spelt a few words how the british did we'd get in trouble or get the word wrong.
Here are a few examples

colour = color
theatre = theater
centre = center

If we we're to spell them the first way we'd get introuble because it's wrong and that it's not proper english. I don't care how things are written just as long as I can understand what it's saying.