6 ms·

Not quite related, but I'm wondering what it means to be bilingual. I mean, does the use of English on internet count? For instance, I'm French and I spend mo

Not quite related, but I'm wondering what it means to be bilingual. I mean, does the use of English on internet count? For instance, I'm French and I spend most of my time on the "english" internet, including YouTube, reddit, HN, IRC... I'd say 95% of my activity on the web is in English. I also watch american TV series and movies without subtitles. I understand english quite well and yet, I haven't spoken English for many years. Does that count?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
I'm imagining some poor anon or redditor getting a stroke and only being able to communicate through memes. I think if you can think in English, that counts as bilingual. Ever had a dream in English?
55555 11y ago
I can read fluently in Thai but writing is nearly impossible. I can understand (listen) with significant fluency but speaking is much harder. These are four very different skills, trust me.
arbitrage 11y ago
Fluency in another language is typically understood to mean all aspects of the language ... reading, writing, speaking, and listening. You're not fully (bi|tri|quad)lingual without being able to do some part of those skills in another language. That being said, you don't need to be the worlds best writer or speaker. You just need to have those skills.
- barkingcat 11y ago
  Certain languages are more difficult to master in the 4 quadrants that you refer to (read / write / speak / listen) - sometimes languages are much much more difficult to write than to read - it's important to keep those distinctions in mind when speaking about fluency in other languages because not all languages are like English / Roman / have an alphabet, and it's not fair to say someone is not "fluent" if they can't recall instantaneously how to write the thousands of characters that even a native-speaking child would be able to recall. I'd say someone is fluent if they can perform and understand communications via the various aspects of language, but I don't think you need to be able to express each one. (For example, being able to type Chinese on the computer via ping yin and fast computerized lookup is an expression of fluency, even though the person might not know how the stroke directions of the character would work if they had to write on paper unassisted)
oska 11y ago
In my opinion, yes. Fluency in a language is comprehension and production. What you wrote above was production of (very) fluent English, which was in turn evidence of good comprehension of the linked article. Fluency in another language implies the ability to dwell ‘naturally’ in the language, and I don't think that your dwelling mostly in the written form of the language would lessen the benefits that this paper suggests bilingualism can bring.
barkingcat 11y ago
Yes, that's exactly what bilingual (or multilingual) means. Doesn't have to be completely fluent or use it everyday, just that you literally know and can communicate in more than one language. In Europe, it's more likely that any one person is bi- or multi-lingual just because there are more languages in contact with one another through close borders, etc. In parts of North America, some people only know one language their entire life (whether it be Spanish or English, etc)
jordigh 11y ago
It is quite common (in fact, nearly ubiquitous) for bilinguals to have different domains for each language. For example, you would probably prefer to have a computer conversation in English than in French, but you probably would prefer to speak to your family in French. It is also very common (again, nearly ubiquitous) for bilinguals to have varying degrees of competence in each language. There isn't an absolute boundary that separates bilinguals from monolinguals. If you're interested in the topic, I've been reading this very interesting book. It's slightly technical, but it's a very interesting summary of many recent studies of bilingualism: http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002792.html http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002792...
a-l-c-o 11y ago
I'm in your exact situation. And as a consequence (or cause) I am now seeing French as inadequate. It's such a verbose and slow language. I don't deny its rare beauty when used ideally (think poetry, good writers, Francoise Hardy singing). But in practice, what twisted collective mind could come up and stay with "Qu'est ce que c'est ?" (What is it ?) ? That monster literally translate to "What is this that it is ?". In a fast and unifying world I am positive French is doomed. When arguing this with people I always get rebutted with the likes of "French is very rich.. It is just different..but none the less valuable.." I don't think so. English is an efficient superset of french. You can express as much or more subtlety, feelings or facts in English. Take only the vocabulary : It's just larger in English ! (And in fact contains a good chunk of the French).
- jordigh 11y ago
  > But in practice, what twisted collective mind could come up and stay with "Qu'est ce que c'est ?" (What is it ?) ? That monster literally translate to "What is this that it is ?". But it's only three syllables, like "what is it?" It's also kind of atomic. My French isn't native, but I don't think you can say "qui est ce qui ça est?", if you want to ask "who is it?", i.e. the initial two syllables "qu'est ce que" seem indivisible. Comparisons about one language being more verbose/complex/harder than another never seem to really hold up under scrutiny. Usually when comparing two languages, one exhibits simplicity in one area where the other exhibits simplicity in another and it all roughly balances out. Humans seem to demand approximately a constant level of complexity from their languages. English for example has pretty complicated consonant clusters (e.g. hurdle, or angsts) to make up for fewer syllables. I'm not even sure English tends to have fewer syllables than French, as their common Celtic roots seem to prefer fewer syllables.
  - a-l-c-o 11y ago
    > Comparisons about one language being more verbose/complex/harder than another never seem to really hold up under scrutiny. I've been 'scrutinizing' both for quite long (not bilingual though) and the more I do the more I am convinced of my point. French is definitely more 'verbose/complex/hard'. And unnecessarily so. > Usually when comparing two languages, one exhibits simplicity in one area where the other exhibits simplicity in another and it all roughly balances out. Sorry jordigh, but in what area ? English appears to me simpler in maybe all areas. - le soleil, la lune / the sun, the moon. Things should have a gender ? What for ? - so-leil : 2 Syl. Sun : 1 - lune : mute 'e' - ... > I'm not even sure English tends to have fewer syllables than French, as their common Celtic roots seem to prefer fewer syllables. On global conciseness (whole text-wise) English is a clear winner. Do the test in Google Translate. I comment all my code in English despite not being a native speaker because it's just shorter. Words like 'get/set' are unbeatable.
ranit 11y ago
From the article: >> ... bilinguals - defined in the study as those who spoke two or more languages So, perhaps not speaking, or not be able to speak second language does exclude you.
shas3 11y ago
Further, do programming languages and math (each with their own definitions, notations, and axioms) count as language? I guess that would depend on how the brain processes these vs. spoken/written language. How about dialects and very closely related languages? Surely, say, Tamil (or Mandarin) and English are quite different or orthogonal even, while Tamil (or Mandarin) and Kannada (or Cantonese) have similarities having diverged more recently (~2000 years for Tamil and Kannada/~1000 years for Chinese).
- auvrw 11y ago
  > programming languages and math i'm guessing these as much parietal as frontal. although we describe them as languages, they are indeed "processed" in a different way than verbal fluency.
- ionforce 11y ago
  As far as I know (amateur language learning enthusiast) there's no support linking programming languages to foreign languages, other than random Internet folk such as ourselves drawing upon superficial similarities.

saint_fiasco 11y ago

I'm imagining some poor anon or redditor getting a stroke and only being able to communicate through memes. I think if you can think in English, that counts as bilingual. Ever had a dream in English?

55555 11y ago

I can read fluently in Thai but writing is nearly impossible. I can understand (listen) with significant fluency but speaking is much harder. These are four very different skills, trust me.

arbitrage 11y ago

Fluency in another language is typically understood to mean all aspects of the language ... reading, writing, speaking, and listening. You're not fully (bi|tri|quad)lingual without being able to do some part of those skills in another language. That being said, you don't need to be the worlds best writer or speaker. You just need to have those skills.

barkingcat 11y ago
Certain languages are more difficult to master in the 4 quadrants that you refer to (read / write / speak / listen) - sometimes languages are much much more difficult to write than to read - it's important to keep those distinctions in mind when speaking about fluency in other languages because not all languages are like English / Roman / have an alphabet, and it's not fair to say someone is not "fluent" if they can't recall instantaneously how to write the thousands of characters that even a native-speaking child would be able to recall. I'd say someone is fluent if they can perform and understand communications via the various aspects of language, but I don't think you need to be able to express each one. (For example, being able to type Chinese on the computer via ping yin and fast computerized lookup is an expression of fluency, even though the person might not know how the stroke directions of the character would work if they had to write on paper unassisted)

oska 11y ago

In my opinion, yes. Fluency in a language is comprehension and production. What you wrote above was production of (very) fluent English, which was in turn evidence of good comprehension of the linked article. Fluency in another language implies the ability to dwell ‘naturally’ in the language, and I don't think that your dwelling mostly in the written form of the language would lessen the benefits that this paper suggests bilingualism can bring.

barkingcat 11y ago

Yes, that's exactly what bilingual (or multilingual) means. Doesn't have to be completely fluent or use it everyday, just that you literally know and can communicate in more than one language. In Europe, it's more likely that any one person is bi- or multi-lingual just because there are more languages in contact with one another through close borders, etc. In parts of North America, some people only know one language their entire life (whether it be Spanish or English, etc)

jordigh 11y ago

It is quite common (in fact, nearly ubiquitous) for bilinguals to have different domains for each language. For example, you would probably prefer to have a computer conversation in English than in French, but you probably would prefer to speak to your family in French. It is also very common (again, nearly ubiquitous) for bilinguals to have varying degrees of competence in each language. There isn't an absolute boundary that separates bilinguals from monolinguals. If you're interested in the topic, I've been reading this very interesting book. It's slightly technical, but it's a very interesting summary of many recent studies of bilingualism: http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002792.html http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002792...

a-l-c-o 11y ago

I'm in your exact situation. And as a consequence (or cause) I am now seeing French as inadequate. It's such a verbose and slow language. I don't deny its rare beauty when used ideally (think poetry, good writers, Francoise Hardy singing). But in practice, what twisted collective mind could come up and stay with "Qu'est ce que c'est ?" (What is it ?) ? That monster literally translate to "What is this that it is ?". In a fast and unifying world I am positive French is doomed. When arguing this with people I always get rebutted with the likes of "French is very rich.. It is just different..but none the less valuable.." I don't think so. English is an efficient superset of french. You can express as much or more subtlety, feelings or facts in English. Take only the vocabulary : It's just larger in English ! (And in fact contains a good chunk of the French).

jordigh 11y ago
> But in practice, what twisted collective mind could come up and stay with "Qu'est ce que c'est ?" (What is it ?) ? That monster literally translate to "What is this that it is ?". But it's only three syllables, like "what is it?" It's also kind of atomic. My French isn't native, but I don't think you can say "qui est ce qui ça est?", if you want to ask "who is it?", i.e. the initial two syllables "qu'est ce que" seem indivisible. Comparisons about one language being more verbose/complex/harder than another never seem to really hold up under scrutiny. Usually when comparing two languages, one exhibits simplicity in one area where the other exhibits simplicity in another and it all roughly balances out. Humans seem to demand approximately a constant level of complexity from their languages. English for example has pretty complicated consonant clusters (e.g. hurdle, or angsts) to make up for fewer syllables. I'm not even sure English tends to have fewer syllables than French, as their common Celtic roots seem to prefer fewer syllables.
- a-l-c-o 11y ago
  > Comparisons about one language being more verbose/complex/harder than another never seem to really hold up under scrutiny. I've been 'scrutinizing' both for quite long (not bilingual though) and the more I do the more I am convinced of my point. French is definitely more 'verbose/complex/hard'. And unnecessarily so. > Usually when comparing two languages, one exhibits simplicity in one area where the other exhibits simplicity in another and it all roughly balances out. Sorry jordigh, but in what area ? English appears to me simpler in maybe all areas. - le soleil, la lune / the sun, the moon. Things should have a gender ? What for ? - so-leil : 2 Syl. Sun : 1 - lune : mute 'e' - ... > I'm not even sure English tends to have fewer syllables than French, as their common Celtic roots seem to prefer fewer syllables. On global conciseness (whole text-wise) English is a clear winner. Do the test in Google Translate. I comment all my code in English despite not being a native speaker because it's just shorter. Words like 'get/set' are unbeatable.

ranit 11y ago

From the article: >> ... bilinguals - defined in the study as those who spoke two or more languages So, perhaps not speaking, or not be able to speak second language does exclude you.

shas3 11y ago

Further, do programming languages and math (each with their own definitions, notations, and axioms) count as language? I guess that would depend on how the brain processes these vs. spoken/written language. How about dialects and very closely related languages? Surely, say, Tamil (or Mandarin) and English are quite different or orthogonal even, while Tamil (or Mandarin) and Kannada (or Cantonese) have similarities having diverged more recently (~2000 years for Tamil and Kannada/~1000 years for Chinese).

auvrw 11y ago
> programming languages and math i'm guessing these as much parietal as frontal. although we describe them as languages, they are indeed "processed" in a different way than verbal fluency.
ionforce 11y ago
As far as I know (amateur language learning enthusiast) there's no support linking programming languages to foreign languages, other than random Internet folk such as ourselves drawing upon superficial similarities.