Speaking foreign languages can be very useful; Pierre above is acutally from Scunthorpe. Image: franklin_hunting/flickr
Why study languages? This may sound like an encouraging opening line to a university prospectus, but sadly this is a question heard all too often, with emphasis put on the ‘why.’ No surprises that the Daily Mail of all newspapers also agrees.
David Thomas’ comment article on January 23 began by sounding simply like an egotistic, autobiographical monologue about how fabulously well-educated he was, but actually there was a bit more to it. He managed to shape an argument around this self-congratulation. Only half way through the article did I realise what his point was.
However, I do not wish to make this personal. He is saying is the same as what is said by worrying numbers of people– the classic ‘everyone speaks English’ excuse.
English is taught as a second language in schools in many countries worldwide, but this does not mean children in
England can sit back while their counterparts abroad do all the work.
Along with it being a matter of courtesy, languages help the individual to appreciate other cultures and societies.
You cannot truly integrate into a place without the language. Chances are the waiters in Benidorm will understand you if you ask for a Fosters and some fish and chips in English, but does this really class as experiencing Spanish culture?
Because Western culture dominates globally, with the notable influence of America, there are people in this country who expect others to accommodate for them.
The reason for travelling should be to appreciate cultural diversity, not to take your own country with you wherever you go. To use an Anglicism, variety is the spice of life.
David Thomas argues that you cannot learn every single language in the world. True, but does this justify not bothering?
Surely history graduates do not know the entire history of the world, decade by decade? And scientists do not know the answers to everything yet. He would likely attach value to these subjects, so he should not dismiss the value of languages – be it one, or 10.
I said I would not make it personal but the reader is right to question Thomas’ argument. He believes that languages are simply a: ‘genteel indulgence like…learning to play the violin.’
By choosing a pursuit such as an instrument by way of example, he implies that languages should be a reserve of those who can afford it, largely the middle-classes.
Thomas’ autobiographical account returns to stab him in the back, highlighting his hypocrisy.
He discusses his upbringing, which sounds rather privileged – certainly in an academic sense. He had the benefit of a brilliant education and is now dismissing it, as if to say that his opportunity to learn languages should not be encouraged to the masses of schoolchildren.
From a slightly more mundane perspective, languages are needed for certain professions and Thomas admits this himself.
If kids are not inspired at school, we could see the numbers of language graduates plummeting even further.
So, would I give up French if he thinks there is: ‘no need to learn any foreign tongues?’ Non, merci.