Print

Print


2009/6/30 <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>:
> Jim Henry wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:51 AM, <deinx nxtxr><[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Henry wrote:
>>
>>>> That could be conveniently combined, I reckon, with the suggestion
>>>> often made that children learn a relatively easy engelang or auxlang
>>>> before starting their second messy, complicated natlang.
>>
>>> If you get them all learning the same "easy auxlang" there won't be much
>>> need for them to learn anything else. �That will deploy the auxlang and
>>> make
>>> it useful.
>>
>> If it were done simultaneously everywhere, sure.   But my point is
>> that it would be somewhat beneficial to the children in particular
>> places where it's implemented even if it's decades or centuries or
>> never  before it's implemented everywhere, especially if there's at
>> least one classroom of children in some other country that's learning
>> the same auxlang.  You get the cultural benefits of corresponding with
>> those other children, plus the linguistic awareness and
>> self-confidence from learnng a relatively easy language first, which
>> improves their motivation for learning the next natlang the study and
>> their chances of succeding in learning it.
>>
>> So for instance, suppose you have a classroom of children in in
>> Knoxville learning Sasxsek, and a classroom of children in Oulu
>> learning it as well, then by the end of a semester they could be
>> corresponding in it and maybe talking in it via Skype or something.
>> Then at the end of the semester the teachers lay out their options for
>> future study -- e.g. Esperanto is a little harder but you can talk to
>> thousands of times more people with it, Spanish or Japanese are a fair
>> bit harder but you can talk to millions of times more people with
>> them, etc.
>
> Oh, yes but if you're going to bother teaching the kids of the world an
> auxlang, why not just go all out use that as the oppotunity to deploy the
> auxlang instead of teaching them multiple languages.

Even if that were the goal though you'd have way more students
becoming curious in other languages later on due to knowing the
auxlang, since much of the time you can't just stop with one. I'm sure
we've all noticed how multilingual people almost always seem willing
to learn yet another language whereas monolingual people almost never
seem to get to that first L2.

I wrote a bit on this subject the other day:

http://www.pagef30.com/2009/06/worldwide-second-language-does-not.html

The easiest way to see how a worldwide L2 wouldn't result in other
languages losing their use is by looking at the English version of a
country's press compared to its native language - almost 100% of the
time the English version is a watered-down version that never really
imparts the same information. That's why the English version of Korean
newspapers makes the country out to be some sort of culturally
conservative bastion when really it's anything but (adultery is almost
the norm, love hotels are everywhere, premarital sex is as common as
any other western country, etc.).

Those two reasons are why I think a worldwide L2 would actually result
in a strengthening of national languages - the hundreds of millions of
presently unilingual people would now all be fluently bilingual, and
all these would be both more willing to and more able to pick up yet
another language.


-- 
http://www.pagef30.com