Actually, if you’re an adult English speaker, learning foreign languages is probably not worth its opportunity cost. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to learn a language well enough to do anything useful or productive with it, or even just to be able to talk to native speakers in a way that won’t be annoyingly incompetent.
What’s more, for just about any language there are huge numbers of native speakers who speak professional-level English, including natively bilingual kids of immigrants, so you’re not developing any rare and precious combination of skills. (There are exceptions, such as e.g. knowledge of some languages combined with a security clearance that’s hard to obtain if you’re not a native citizen, but they are few and far between.)
Of course, if you find learning languages a fun hobby, go for it. But unless it’s a greater source of fun and enjoyment than other things you might be doing, it’s quite pointless. (And I say that as someone who can find his way around in at least five different languages.)
I’m a native English speaker, I started studying Russian at age 19, and I was fluent enough to converse with native speakers in a non-annoying way by age 21. Granted, circumstantial evidence from peers does suggest I’m something of an outlier. I’ve also found that learning a third, fourth, etc. language is much easier once you’ve already become fluent in a second language. Indeed, when I studied subsequent languages, I would usually take my notes in Russian, to cut the native-language-favoring wiring in my brain out of the process to the extent possible.
I agree to a degree about the practicality of learning the languages, with the caveats that a) there are interesting people to interact with in the world that do not speak English, and knowing more languages expands the set of interesting people one may interact with, and b)if you enjoy reading, literature is generally much better in the original than in translation.
I’m a native English speaker, I started studying Russian at age 19, and I was fluent enough to converse with native speakers in a non-annoying way by age 21.
That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment. How much time did you dedicate to studying Russian during that period?
I agree that literature is much better in the original, but learning a language so well that you can appreciate good literary style in it is a very ambitious goal, far more difficult than just learning it well enough to converse competently.
I haven’t seen any statistics, but I suspect that there is a significant number of hearing people born to deaf parents who are natively bilingual in English and various Anglospheric sign languages.
On top of that, I expect there are already plenty of non-native, dedicated translators and interpreters for a given language gap. Oops, thank you both.
I’m not sure that really addresses the issue. I didn’t quote the passage that explicitly mentions it but the “enormous amount of time and effort” is important because it’s an enormous opportunity cost. The article you linked says, among other things, that
[Children] can devote almost their full time to [learning their language]. Adults consider half an hour’s study a day to be onerous.
I don’t doubt that children spend a tremendous fraction of their time learning their language, just as they spend a tremendous fraction of their time maturing in other ways. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to a significant opportunity cost, because children are doing other things throughout their day as they learn their language. One way to measure the opportunity cost associated with each additional language learned might be to see how much and in what ways bilingual and trilingual children lose out in exchange for learning languages two and three. The linked article mentions that children won’t learn a second language if they can get along with just one, which tells us that there is some cost associated with learning each additional language, but that doesn’t really tell us how great the cost is.
Note also that while kids will pick up languages faster, more spontaneously, and with better results (the ability to pick up a flawless accent and perfect command of finer points of grammar usually disappears in late childhood), they will also forget them unbelievably quickly and thoroughly without active use. As an adult, your command of a language may get rusty, but it will never fall to zero as long as your brain is functioning decently. On the other hand, kids who change environments may forget even their first native language so thoroughly that they’ll be barely able to recall a single word.
Actually, if you’re an adult English speaker, learning foreign languages is probably not worth its opportunity cost. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to learn a language well enough to do anything useful or productive with it, or even just to be able to talk to native speakers in a way that won’t be annoyingly incompetent.
What’s more, for just about any language there are huge numbers of native speakers who speak professional-level English, including natively bilingual kids of immigrants, so you’re not developing any rare and precious combination of skills. (There are exceptions, such as e.g. knowledge of some languages combined with a security clearance that’s hard to obtain if you’re not a native citizen, but they are few and far between.)
Of course, if you find learning languages a fun hobby, go for it. But unless it’s a greater source of fun and enjoyment than other things you might be doing, it’s quite pointless. (And I say that as someone who can find his way around in at least five different languages.)
I’m a native English speaker, I started studying Russian at age 19, and I was fluent enough to converse with native speakers in a non-annoying way by age 21. Granted, circumstantial evidence from peers does suggest I’m something of an outlier. I’ve also found that learning a third, fourth, etc. language is much easier once you’ve already become fluent in a second language. Indeed, when I studied subsequent languages, I would usually take my notes in Russian, to cut the native-language-favoring wiring in my brain out of the process to the extent possible.
I agree to a degree about the practicality of learning the languages, with the caveats that a) there are interesting people to interact with in the world that do not speak English, and knowing more languages expands the set of interesting people one may interact with, and b)if you enjoy reading, literature is generally much better in the original than in translation.
That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment. How much time did you dedicate to studying Russian during that period?
I agree that literature is much better in the original, but learning a language so well that you can appreciate good literary style in it is a very ambitious goal, far more difficult than just learning it well enough to converse competently.
Exception: Sign Languages, though they have relatively small populations.
I haven’t seen any statistics, but I suspect that there is a significant number of hearing people born to deaf parents who are natively bilingual in English and various Anglospheric sign languages.
I have met at least one person with this background.
On top of that, I expect there are already plenty of non-native, dedicated translators and interpreters for a given language gap. Oops, thank you both.
Unless the learner is a child—or so I’ve heard.
This may not actually be true.
I’m not sure that really addresses the issue. I didn’t quote the passage that explicitly mentions it but the “enormous amount of time and effort” is important because it’s an enormous opportunity cost. The article you linked says, among other things, that
I don’t doubt that children spend a tremendous fraction of their time learning their language, just as they spend a tremendous fraction of their time maturing in other ways. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to a significant opportunity cost, because children are doing other things throughout their day as they learn their language. One way to measure the opportunity cost associated with each additional language learned might be to see how much and in what ways bilingual and trilingual children lose out in exchange for learning languages two and three. The linked article mentions that children won’t learn a second language if they can get along with just one, which tells us that there is some cost associated with learning each additional language, but that doesn’t really tell us how great the cost is.
Note the “adult” qualification in the first sentence of my comment.
Ah, I missed that!
Note also that while kids will pick up languages faster, more spontaneously, and with better results (the ability to pick up a flawless accent and perfect command of finer points of grammar usually disappears in late childhood), they will also forget them unbelievably quickly and thoroughly without active use. As an adult, your command of a language may get rusty, but it will never fall to zero as long as your brain is functioning decently. On the other hand, kids who change environments may forget even their first native language so thoroughly that they’ll be barely able to recall a single word.