September 17, 2007
Busy professionals and foreign language acquisition
Buy a print copy from BN.com or Amazon.com
I am always grateful when someone discusses one of my books online----even if they chose to disagree with me.
That is exactly what someone in the how-to-learn-any-language.com chose to do. In my book Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One I assert that people who learn languages for business purposes should limit themselves to a small number of of languages.
In the book, I suggest that professionals limit themselves to three foreign languages (in addition to their native one.) Here are the brass tacks: Suppose that your native language is English and your primary job function is engineering. Over the course of your career, you might reasonably expect to master Spanish, French, and Japanese to a level where you can competently discuss engineering tasks with your overseas colleagues and read the professional literature of your field in the target language.
However, if you set your sights on Spanish, French, Japanese, Russian, Thai, German, and Chinese, then one of two things is likely to happen: 1.) you will find yourself unable to maintain professional proficiency in all of your foreign languages, or 2.) language study will consume so much of your time that it will detract your other career activities and goals.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the book:
The Rule of Seven
There is a limit to the number of languages in which you can practically expect to achieve business-level competency. I have read about linguists who have learned ten, twelve, or even twenty languages. While I don't doubt that there are individuals who can carry on basic conversations in twenty languages, I would be willing to bet that there are few who can discuss advanced theories in economics, finance, and engineering in so many tongues. Remember: your goal should be to reach an advanced level of competency in any language that you study. It would be better for you to truly master only one foreign language than to have a superficial knowledge of four or five.
Polyglots (individuals who speak multiple languages) sometimes refer to the "Rule of Seven". The Rule of Seven states that proficiency in seven foreign languages is the practical upper limit for most people. In other words, if you try to take on more than seven languages (in addition to your native one), you are unlikely to become highly competent in all of them.
My own research suggests that the upper limit may be even lower. The American Translators Association, or ATA (atanet.org) is a professional organization for translators and interpreters. I recently browsed through the translator profiles located in the ATA’s online database. It was common to find translators and interpreters who worked with two or three foreign languages, but I was unable to find a translator who offered services in more than five foreign languages.
This might provide a good yardstick for planning your own language studies. Keep in mind that translators are language specialists, and their limit seems to be five foreign languages. For a person whose primary job function is not translation, I would estimate that the practical limit is about three foreign languages. However, this is not exactly dismal news. Three foreign languages should provide enough variety to keep most learners motivated and interested, without sacrificing a high level of attainment in each language studied.
Once you experience the fun of mastering one or two languages, you will probably find no less than a dozen that really interest you. In fact, I have yet to meet a language that I don't like. If I had unlimited time, I would study them all—from French to Bulgarian to Navajo. However, there are only so many hours that can be dedicated to studying new languages and maintaining old ones. Therefore, I would urge the part-time linguist to exercise discipline. Make a list of all the languages that potentially interest you, and narrow it down to three.
---Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One
This provoked disagreement from a poster in the aforementioned forum, who, relying on the incomplete amount of text available from the Google Book Search excerpt, decided that I my objective was to compare all language learners to translators:
I see a big problem and a great hole in Mr. Trimnell's research regarding the maximum number of languages a mortal man can learn at a reasonably high level of proficiency. This "reasonably high" (my text) is exactly the problem. He's looking at lists of translators and their working languages! Being able to translate efficiently and professionally from one language to another is just about the highest skill one can attain, and a well educated bilingual person will easily get lost in the task. It's a bit of an insult to the profession really. Being a professional translator goes too much above and beyond the "call of duty" of being extremely proficient in a language.
I have worked as a professional translator, and I have also held non-translation jobs for which a high level of proficiency in a foreign language (usually Japanese, in my case) was essential. So I understand the differences between translating and interpreting for other people--- and simply using a foreign language on the job.
Nevertheless, I stand behind my conclusion. First of all, the comparison to translators is incidental to my main argument. Secondly, the major theme of Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One is the relationship between foreign languages and non-linguist professionals. Therefore, I assume that my readers a.) will want to thoroughly master whatever language(s) they choose to study, and b.) they won’t want to become fulltime linguists.
This is where my reference to translators is relevant. A translator is a fulltime linguist, more or less---and even they restrict themselves to a small number of working languages.
I realize, of course, that there are people who can hold conversations in eight, ten, or even twenty languages. I would wager, however, that these individuals aren’t professionally fluent in all of them, and that language study consumes a disproportionate amount of their time. (Even the mastery of three foreign languages to a professional level requires an enormous time commitment.)
Therefore, I think that the poster and I are simply comparing apples and oranges. There is nothing wrong with developing conversational fluency in a baker’s dozen worth of languages. There is also nothing wrong with devoting all of your free time to language study. But this program deviates from the objectives I lay out in Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One.
