Linguist Mario Pei once said that it was all relavant as to what are easy languages or hard languages to learn and that it depends on how similar the foreign language is to your own language.
Here are some examples which tend to illustrate that point:
English: Domestic violence
French: La violence domestique
Spanish: La violencia doméstica
But Russian: Nasilie v sem’ye
English: A winter sports paradise
Dutch: Een paradijs van de wintersporten
German: Ein Wintersportsparadies
But Russian: Raiskii uglok dla liubitelei zimnik vidov
sporta.
English: The Spanish conquistadors
French: Les conquérants espagnols
Spanish: Los conquistadores españoles
But Irish: Na gabhálaithe
Chinese: xibanya zhengfuzhe
Because those of us who speak English recognize much of the vocabulary in French, Spanish, Dutch and German we call these "easy" or "fairly easy" languages. However, because languages like Russian, Irish and Chinese contain a lot of vocabulary that we are not familiar with we call them "hard" languages.
Since English is on the Ghent-Ostend line between the Romance and Germanic speaking regions of Europe English speakers have an advantage of being able to learn both Teutonic (Germanic) and Romance languages with relative ease. A fact rightfully pointed out by Frederick Bodmer and Lancelot Hogben in their seminal book "The Loom of Language" originally published in 1944 and now available on the intenet.
If you are learning something, it is easier if it doesn’t differ too much from what you’ve already learnt. Not exactly rocket science.
What is more surprising is that the partnership between zoologist Lancelot Hogben and linguist Frederick Bodmer managed to get a fact like this right. Otherwise, their book is a superb collection of idiotic statements on languages, as I have shown and quoted several times in other threads.
Trying to address the easy/hard question, I’d like to distinguish between different kinds of difficulties, taking some examples from a Swedish multilingualist, who speaks a dozen languages well or rather well (and manages in a couple of dozens more):
There are languages, easy for beginners (German, Dutch), rather easy for beginners (English, Spanish), rather difficult for beginners (French), difficult for beginners (Russian), very difficult for beginners (Arabic).
He aslo gives the rule of thumb that French is twice as difficult as German, Russian twice as difficult as German, and Arabic twice as difficult as Russian.
He makes the point the "speaking" often is understood when discussing difficulties in those terms. For us Swedes, speaking French is rather difficult in the beginning, but for reading, it is rather easy during the first stages. I fully agree with that; I translate very specialised texts from French, but find it very hard to express myself in spoken (or written) French. On the other hand, I avoid working from Spanish, but get along quite well in everyday/tourist speech.
Still referring to a book by the polyglot Erik Gunnemark, Swedish is easy for beginning Germans, rather easy for speakers of English, rather difficult for beginners speaking Finnish, Greek and Slavonic languages, very difficult for beginners speaking Arabic, Chinese or Japanese. That should surprise nobody, and it corresponds quite well to my experience when teaching Swedish to immigrants.
I could go on like this forever, but just want to end with what we have said in other threads: the main requisite for learning a language is the wish to get to know it.
Speaking from personal experience, I found Swedish rather an easy language (as an English native speaker) to both understand and to speak badly. However, the leap from Swedish-with-an-English-accent to fluent, idiomatic Swedish with excellent pronunciation was enormous. I’ve been told that my Swedish is now flawless. Thanks go to a certain advisor at a certain Swedish university’s Department of Nordic Languages who told me that it simply couldn’t be done. Better motivation just doesn’t exist, in my book.
Only partially back, Katy, and probably twice as cranky. I’ve undergone two promotions since I was last active on the Forum. This seems to have placed me in the ranks of senior management. And that translates into more time, if not more effort.
I’m very happy to see the original Agora back in business. While I applauded Tim’s initiative in that other place, the mechanics of it were much less satisfactory. The popup windows were horrendous.
Let’s hope we’re back to some kind of normalcy. And I’ll try to keep up. Really.
Isn’t there also some kind of "absolute" value of the difficulty of a language. It seems self-evident to me that languages which are close to your mother tongue in terms of vocabulary (and also in grammar I would add) will be easier to learn than more distant ones.
But what if there are languages which are equally distant? Surely a language which has several genders, declensions and case endings for nouns, and adjectives which are modified according to some combination of the following noun and the superiority or inferiority of the addressee compared with the speaker - such a language must be considered more difficult than one with no genders, declensions etc…?
My native language has three genders and nine cases.
Your language has two gender and no cases.
At first glance it would seem easier to learn your language, but for me with three genders, I will always be in doubt about whether "it" is "he" or "she."
Great! No cases! That should be easy! But wait what are all these prepositions doing here. How can you tell when to use one of the other. Do they follow some order like my beautiful nine cases.
And you learning my language would often wonderful why the coffee is masculine and the chair isn’t feminine, etc.
And where are the prepostions that really show the relationship between things?
There really are no hard and fast rules for hardness or easiness. It is what you are used to or get used to in the end.
I agree that some languages are more difficult to master than others. However, from my own experience the teaching methode, the teacher and enviroment is of vital importance. I, e.g., scooped up French rather painlessly while German never stuck in spite of almost endless pain.
Indeed, Iterman! Judgement of easy or difficult languages should inevitably be entwained with the resouces at one’s command.
In both Anders’s and Iterman’s senses Adige (Circassian) Language is the most difficult language to learn as far as I could research.
This obscure language from Caucasus Region is sister to Georgian, a recondite language in itself, but Adige is far more difficult. Adige verbs can have upto 2 500 000 000 inflected forms derived by personal affixes of subject, object, indirect object, modal affixes of negation, tense, causative, reflexive, potential, location, direction and so forth. Another Caucasian language, Tabasaran, has 42 cases for nominal declension.
I hasten to add that it escaped the scope of my cursory research whether all of Adige’s verbal inflections or Tabasaran’s nominal declensions are in active use. The inadequacy of my research serves at least to prove the scarcity of information on those languages.
Who’s ever heard of "Adige in Four Weeks" or "Tabasaran for Teens"?
Flam
[quote author=Flaminius link=board=translate;num=1102840762;start=0#8 date=12/16/04 at 09:38:09]Who’s ever heard of "Adige in Four Weeks" or "Tabasaran for Teens"?
Flam
They would make perfect companions to my "Learn X in 30 days", where X is one of the 10 major languages of India, and "Catalan in three months". I would probably find it hard to resist buying if I saw "501 Adige verbs, fully conjugated…" in a CD-ROM version, in spite of thinking that 720 forms of the Sanskrit verb is more than I really need.
Regarding Tabasaran, it would be interesting to know if there is a case for cases, or if they can be interpreted as postpositions (or however they appear).
Yep, I am gonna buy that "501 Adige Verbs: Fully Conjugated" be it in hard copy or in CD-ROM or on the Internet. That will make up the largest dictionary in the world.
[quote author=anders link=board=translate;num=1102840762;start=0#1 date=12/12/04 at 16:21:59]There are languages, easy for beginners (German, Dutch), rather easy for beginners (English, Spanish), rather difficult for beginners (French), difficult for beginners (Russian), very difficult for beginners (Arabic).
Japanese students used to (and I presume still do ; perhaps Flam would care to comment on this) characterise the foreign languages they studied according to a four-point matrix ; ie, as «hairi-yasui/nikui» and «de-yasui/nikui» respectively. Thus, as an old friend from the delightful city of Kôbe once explained, German was «hairinikui» (hard to get into) as one had to learn a lot of morphological rules to be able to speak coherently, but «deyasui», as once these rules were successfully internalised, the student was able to speak a correct, if not always entirely idiomatic German. English, however, was considered «hairiyasui» (easy to get into), as it is possible to create reasonably well-formed sentences (or word chains that are taken for such) with only a rudimentary knowledge of English grammar. The problem, on the other hand, was, as he put it, that English grammar (morphology + syntax) was so complex and the rules governing it so opaque to anyone but a specialist that it was not only hard to get out of («denikui»), but down-right impossible («derarenai»).
He makes the point the "speaking" often is understood when discussing difficulties in those terms. For us Swedes, speaking French is rather difficult in the beginning, but for reading, it is rather easy during the first stages. I fully agree with that; I translate very specialised texts from French, but find it very hard to express myself in spoken (or written) French. On the other hand, I avoid working from Spanish, but get along quite well in everyday/tourist speech.
My experience parallels that of Anders ; I prefer speaking Italian (my favourite language) to French, but find reading the latter quicker than reading the former. This, I think, is because written Italian - even newspaper articles - tend to make rather full use of the immense vocabulary possessed by the language, whereas this is not so much the case in French (and still less so in English). (It would be interesting to know if these unsystematic observations on my part correspond to what is known concerning word use in say, La Reppublica, Le Monde, and The New York Times, respectively….
[T]he main requisite for learning a language is the wish to get to know it.
If we add the phrase «and the opportunity for exposure to it» to the above, I couldn’t agree more….
Since English is on the Ghent-Ostend line between the Romance and Germanic speaking regions of Europe English speakers have an advantage of being able to learn both Teutonic (Germanic) and Romance languages with relative ease.
Well, in Europe, where learning foreign languages is a must, Englishmen aren’t what we call famous for their wonderful ability to communicate in others than their own… This probably has to do with the fact that English suffices them. As to Dutchmen or Yugoslavians of any nationality, those are indeed encouraged by their condition to learn other tongues… No matter the inherent difficulty.
That your language is at a crossing point, may well be a hindrance, too. You have a basis for everything, but it isn’t a wide one. Moreover, if you take into acount that English is a language with barely no inflections, what is the result if you face it with others which do possess them?
Wondering Spaniard wrote: "Englishmen aren’t what we call famous for their wonderful ability to communicate in others than their own.."
W.S. is right about this. Historically, British and Americans have both preferred that foreigners learn their language rather than the other way around and much of this attitude still prevails. However, for those few English people who really are linguists, they would find both the Germanic and Romance languages easily accessable. The Slavic and Celtic languages would be more confounding; and of course, they say that "no Westerner really learns Chinese".
W.S. also wrote: "Moreover, if you take into acount that English is a language with barely no inflections, what is the result if you face it with others which do possess them? ".
This is a little more problematical. English is what is called a Fusional-Analytical type language. This means that it is still not as as flexion-free as languages like Chinese and Vietnamese which are classified as "Analytical" pure and simple.
Spanish and Russian are usually classified as Fusional. Other words for Fusional languages are "Synthetic Languages" and "Inflected Languages". Linguists don’t all use quite the same terminology here. ;)
[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=translate;num=1102840762;start=0#11 date=12/17/04 at 11:52:02]English, however, was considered «hairiyasui» (easy to get into), as it is possible to create reasonably well-formed sentences (or word chains that are taken for such) with only a rudimentary knowledge of English grammar. The problem, on the other hand, was, as he put it, that English grammar (morphology + syntax) was so complex and the rules governing it so opaque to anyone but a specialist that it was not only hard to get out of («denikui»), but down-right impossible («derarenai»).
Japanese appears to be equaly hairiyasuku denikui. Chinese studens have fewer problems with Japanese than those from Europe because they know kanji. But even they have lot of problems in advanced courses. I have once heard a chinese comment on his compatriot students of Japanese, "xiao3 zhao2 jin3, ku2 zhao2 chu2." In a peculiar parallel to Henri’s expression it means "laughing enter but crying exit."
But someday from those crying Chinese students an Otto Jespersen for Japanese may appear.
[quote author=brian_costello link=board=translate;num=1102840762;start=0#13 date=12/20/04 at 18:05:05] Wondering Spaniard wrote: "Englishmen aren’t what we call famous for their wonderful ability to communicate in others than their own.."
W.S. is right about this. Historically, British and Americans have both preferred that foreigners learn their language rather than the other way around and much of this attitude still prevails. However, for those few English people who really are linguists, they would find both the Germanic and Romance languages easily accessable. The Slavic and Celtic languages would be more confounding; and of course, they say that "no Westerner really learns Chinese".
Wow. I don’t even know where to start with this.
W.S., with all due respect, I believe the world has taken an unfortunate stance, and many folks have perpetuated the belief, that native English speakers are uninterested and unwilling to learn other languages.
The bottom line, as I have always stated, is that for those who are simply trying to make a living, and have not moved from their locale, learning a new language is not only unnecessary, but it could be considered detrimental to the task at hand. There are many people today in the U.S., England, Australia, etc., who study other languages out of mere curiosity—when there is no need for them to study the language—which is a wonderful step forward in terms of understanding our global society.
I’m not sure if your original statement was meant to imply that (a) when native English speakers attempt to communicate in other languages, they do a rather poor job at it, or (b) they simply don’t try, or (c) both.
There could be many reasons for any of the above perceptions.
It could also be stated just as fairly that many people in Europe are quite prejudiced against non-native speakers of their languages. And, as Brian has already quoted, the Chinese believe that "no Westerner really learns Chinese." Is that a helpful attitude?
But I am not about to say something as ridiculously judgmental and arrogant as "you are right about this" or "you are wrong about this". The condescending attitude that puts someone in a position to qualify another’s perceptual comments as either right or wrong is immature, to say the least, in my opinion it is quite dangerous.
Brian, I would love for you to explain more about what you are talking about here:
[quote author=brian_costello link=board=translate;num=1102840762;start=0#13 date=12/20/04 at 18:05:05]...English is what is called a Fusional-Analytical type language. This means that it is still not as as flexion-free as languages like Chinese and Vietnamese which are classified as "Analytical" pure and simple.
Spanish and Russian are usually classified as Fusional. Other words for Fusional languages are "Synthetic Languages" and "Inflected Languages". Linguists don’t all use quite the same terminology here. ;)
I’ve noticed you have a habit of throwing around terminology without explaining what you really mean to say. What you’ve said above really means nothing unless we are all clued in to the same vocabulary.
And I would like to end with the comment that English "linguists" don’t find languages any more "accessable" [sic] than any other ordinary people who are fond of languages and learn them and practice them. Calling yourself a "linguist" doesn’t necessarily put you in any better position for adopting a language.
Let’s not confuse being a "linguist" with being "multilingual".
All you have to say is "Brian would you please explain what you mean by…"
Avoid insinuating that my remarks are "arrogant, condescending , judgemental, or immature" etc. This verges on the personal or ad hominem attacks which which we are trying to avoid on this site. ( Furthermore, ad hominem attacks are usually made by people who cannot argue with facts and they only make them look bad in turn.)
Linguistics is a field loaded with terminology just as much as biology, psychology, math, law or accounting. As I remember, even driver education had a fair amount of terminology. In short, you cannot discuss linguistics very much without knowing the terminology. Unlike math or accounting, however, linguistics is one of the humanities which is why I like it better.
What I was talking about here by Fusional (Inflected), Agglutinative, Polysynthetic, and Isolating are what are known as "language typologies". All languages belong to a certain typological category. No language fits any one category 100% perfectly but this is immaterial. Even imperfect typological categories help linguists study different language structures and systems of grammar better than none at all. The following are some examples of typological classifications among languages:
Chinese, Vietnamese: Isolating
Eskimo, Chippewa, Basque(?) - Polysynthetic
French - Fusional but with some isolating
and polysyntheic characteristics too.
Breton Welsh: Fusional; some agglutinative
Tagalog; Ilokano (Philippines) same as above
Nowadays, you don’t have to buy and read a linguistics book to acquire this information. It can be pulled up in seconds on the Internet and you can check everything I say verbatim simply by matching it up with what you find on the internet.
I’m sure that some people on this site, especially Anders, are familiar with the above-mentioned terminology and maybe they would like to discuss it before I go any further.
