Best language to learn?

I studied Mandarin for a while, it's near impossible. Spanish would be a lot easier to master.

Arabic would be an interesting one to know.

Hi OP.

Really a lot depends on why you want to learn a language. This is important because while it's not that difficult to learn a foreign language, it is quite a lot of work and drill and takes some time. You talk about wanting to "learn new languages" which suggests you plan to do more than one.

If you have no real idea why you're doing this, I'd skip the languages which will require you to learn to write as well, so that's really Russian, Japanese, Mandarin and Arabic out, initially at least. No reason not to try later, but also, no reason to make life unduly difficult at the outset either. Language learning comes with peaks and troughs on the motivation front.

You also need to consider how you plan to do the learning. If you want classes, you're going to be limited in terms of what is locally available and how much you want to spend on those classes. Dublin has a couple of schools with a huge range of options but they are not really cheap and nationally, you're looking possibly at some selection of French, German, Italian, Spanish and Polish with the odd other straggler here and there.

Strategically if you ever think you might want to work for a European Institution, most vacancies will require you to have at least one other working language in addition to your native language. In practical terms, this is French or German as I assume English is your native language. If you want to hedge your bets and include the UN, French is probably going to edge it. Added bonus is it is spoken locally in Brussels and Geneva.

(disclaimer: I speak both French and German)

If you want to do it independently using technology based solutions, you have Duolingo which is free but currently limited to a number of European languages for English speakers AFAIK. I've read their study supporting "scientifically proven" and I have some doubts as they had a massive non-finish rate, however, as a taster introduction it has some merits. It will not bring you anywhere close to useful fluency. Against that you have Livemocha and Rosetta Stone, neither of which is particularly cheap.

You can also look at doing it independently using books and tapes and farming the internet for resources and also seeing if there are any language exchange evenings locally to you - Dublin has at least one that I know about and I think Cork does as well. Facebook has a lot of resources to support language learning as well. Additionally, and a lot depends on how much guts you've got in terms of dealing with the frustration of not understanding what you're listening to, tunein.com has a load of radio stations and if you're not sound familiar with what language you've started with, it's worth listening to something in the foreign language.

But going back to your original question: motivation is a massive problem in terms of learning languages particularly if you're not immersed in a country where the language is locally spoken. I have a book beside me called Fluent in Three Months and the reason I bought it is when I flicked it open I fell on a page where there was a discussion on what the word "fluent" actually meant. That being said, there is some decent advice in it regarding practice and that really matters. You have to put in time.

In terms of benefit, it comes in several guises. There's a body of research which suggests that there are mental health benefits particularly in terms of age onset brain health diseases to being bilingual. Some languages bring employment benefits but it is worth noting that as a skill itself, it is not necessarily economically beneficial and language specific jobs are, in many cases, not well paid. Where it can be helpful, sometimes (and rarely in Ireland outside tech support and customer service) is as a differentiator.

I've a family member who took an interest in German as a teenager because he was fascinated by the automotive industry over there. I got stuck into French when I was 14 for the simple reason that I wanted to live there. I'm learning Finnish at the moment for much the same reason. There are people who study Italian because they holiday there regularly and love the place.

Ultimately, if there is no place calling you, and you're looking at benefit in economic terms, you need to look at the rest of your life. There is no real point, I think, in putting effort into Mandarin or Russian unless you can see as well what it is you would be doing there, or what you would be trading there. In terms of being in Ireland and being likely to remain in Europe, you're really better off looking at French or German. Economically, outside the institutions, German may well be a better bet, but French opens a few doors in terms of opportunity outside Europe which German does not. Spanish is interesting in Latin American terms.

In other words, if you're not sure what language to learn, look at what you want to achieve with it as well.

The other point I'd raise is boards.ie has a languages board plus a couple of language specific boards and people there may be interested in talking too. There is certainly resource advice to be got there whatever way you decide to go.

They say it takes between 5,000 and 10,000 hours is study to become fluent in a language. Assuming you study an hour a day (yeah right, nobody ends up keeping to such ambitious study levels) and even spend a year living in the country (10 hours a day of foreign language interaction × 365) you still will spend the guts of 5 years learning your language. That's a huge commitment. 5 years of consistently learning vocab. 5 years of not being able to understand everything and being frustrated trying to read the newspaper. And all for what end - same vague aspiration to speak a different language without reference to culture or personal taste?

Around this time of year, people spend a fortune on Teach Yourself books and CDs, Rosetta Stone, etc. How many of them can hold a conversation in their target language today?

And then there's the Irish definition of fluent. Some people think that being able to order a croissant in a French bakery qualifies them as fluent. Did you know that according to the Central Statistics Office, there are entire census tracts in south Dublin where 100% of the population can (self-reportedly) speak French? I'd love to knock on a few of those doors and test their fluency.

pconn062

Aard wrote: »

They say it takes between 5,000 and 10,000 hours is study to become fluent in a language. Assuming you study an hour a day (yeah right, nobody ends up keeping to such ambitious study levels) and even spend a year living in the country (10 hours a day of foreign language interaction × 365) you still will spend the guts of 5 years learning your language. That's a huge commitment. 5 years of consistently learning vocab. 5 years of not being able to understand everything and being frustrated trying to read the newspaper. And all for what end - same vague aspiration to speak a different language without reference to culture or personal taste?

Around this time of year, people spend a fortune on Teach Yourself books and CDs, Rosetta Stone, etc. How many of them can hold a conversation in their target language today?

And then there's the Irish definition of fluent. Some people think that being able to order a croissant in a French bakery qualifies them as fluent. Did you know that according to the Central Statistics Office, there are entire census tracts in south Dublin where 100% of the population can (self-reportedly) speak French? I'd love to knock on a few of those doors and test their fluency.

Not sure where you're getting those figures from. According to this website the amount of hours it takes to learn a language varies wildly between languages, with some like Spanish being possible to learn in a year or so:

If Spanish is your first foreign language and your mother tongue is not a Romance language, you should be reasonably fluent with 300 hours of study. In my opinion, an hour of serious study every day for a year is more than you need.

Even a relatively tough language like German could be learned to near fluency in 2-3 years in my experience.

And I assume the end result is the ability to converse with someone in their native tongue while also gaining a deeper understanding of the culture of that country, rather than the typical Anglophone trait of expecting everyone to speak to them if their language.

If you learnt German to a native-fluency level (I note you say near-fluency; I used the 5000-10000 hrs as an indicator for native-level fluency which is what would be required for EU interpretation) then fair play. Did you live in a German-speaking country while doing so? In my own experience with French, my ability only took off once I lived in France. If you became fluent in German in 2-3 years without even living there, then that is very impressive and highly unusual.

Aard wrote: »

If you learnt German to a native-fluency level (I note you say near-fluency; I used the 5000-10000 hrs as an indicator for native-level fluency which is what would be required for EU interpretation) then fair play. Did you live in a German-speaking country while doing so? In my own experience with French, my ability only took off once I lived in France. If you became fluent in German in 2-3 years without even living there, then that is very impressive and highly unusual.

Arguably, most people don't need interpreter level fluency to get by, even day to day, in either France or Germany.

I'm really reluctant to say "if you work/study for 5-10000 hours you'll be fluent". Some people make it faster and some people make it slower and it doesn't really matter. And there is the difficulty in counting hours. If I spend an hour with the phrase book, is that different to having the radio on in the background all the time?

What I will say is this: the difficulty is completely front loaded. It is far harder at the start than it is even three to four months in. The more you learn, the easier it gets to pick up. Plus - and a lot of people don't tend to realise this: you never really stop learning your native language either. It keeps changing over time and you learn on an ongoing basis there too.

Calina wrote: »

I'm really reluctant to say "if you work/study for 5-10000 hours you'll be fluent". Some people make it faster and some people make it slower and it doesn't really matter. And there is the difficulty in counting hours. If I spend an hour with the phrase book, is that different to having the radio on in the background all the time?

Totally. Also, some people just have an aptitude for language that others don't have. Enthusiasm goes a long way too I think. The OP seemed a bit unsure as to exactly why he wanted to learn a language. I'd say the "drop out" rate, in as much as you could measure it, among language learners is quite high. If there's no compelling reason to learn the language, most people will just quit. So an enthusiastic language-competent Francophile might learn French in no time, whereas somebody learning it just to boost their CV or for vague "business opportunities" might struggle for years on end, unless they'd already given up.

I think we have a big advantage and disadvantage when it comes to learning languages.

That English is our mother tongue. I have worked in several countries in Europe and have always worked through English. I would learn enough of the local language to get by but a lot of people will want to speak English with me. If English wasn't my first language I would be forced to learn it or at least learn the local language.

Where I am now, I have been here for over a year and my knowledge of the local language is quite limited. The need isn't there, and that above all else is the greatest driving force. After that comes want.

Aard wrote: »

I'd say the "drop out" rate, in as much as you could measure it, among language learners is quite high.

The drop out rate in Duolingo's "we're scientifically proven to work" study was catastrophically high but it is for most MOOC based courses as well. I'm not sure that languages are necessarily unique in that respect however particularly since a lot of the online courses are technology based. I honestly believe structure is particularly important in learning like this.

On an unrelated note, most people who are thrown into a situation where they have to learn a language get by. For that reason, I'm reluctant to see a split between people who have an aptitude and people who don't per se. The primary difference seems to be motivations at difference life stages.

Ireland's success rate in teaching foreign languages is abysmal. I used to think this was because we started teaching it too late but there's some research done and due to be made public sometime next year suggesting that there's no real difference related to starting age on that scale, that the issue is very much motivation and teaching skills.

The problem with language learning, and with maths to some extent I suppose, is that there is no instant return on investment with either.

pconn062

Aard wrote: »

If you learnt German to a native-fluency level (I note you say near-fluency; I used the 5000-10000 hrs as an indicator for native-level fluency which is what would be required for EU interpretation) then fair play. Did you live in a German-speaking country while doing so? In my own experience with French, my ability only took off once I lived in France. If you became fluent in German in 2-3 years without even living there, then that is very impressive and highly unusual.

I am certainly not near EU interpretation level, however I consider myself conversational fluent. I don't mean that to mean I can ask where the bathroom is

, I am comfortable conversing on a lot of subjects with native speakers with the ability to get my point across clearly and could live in the country with no issues. However if I were to attend a lecture on macro-economics, I might need a dictionary

, so still some work to go.

Calina wrote: »

On an unrelated note, most people who are thrown into a situation where they have to learn a language get by. For that reason, I'm reluctant to see a split between people who have an aptitude and people who don't per se. The primary difference seems to be motivations at difference life stages.

Yes it is a bit sink-or-swim in those cases. I guess aptitude is the wrong word, maybe some people have an "ear" for it....or is that even more uselessly vague I wonder. I keep being reminded of an American woman I used know in France. She had very good French -- extensive vocabulary, good command of complex sentence structure. However she had the most atrocious accent, very heavily American, with zero attempt to speak with even a semblance of a French accent. No rounded vowels, no uvular "r". Even had the nasal American twang, but failed to nasalise the French vowels when needed. It was horrible, and I'm probably being kind with that description. French people thought she was a novice when speaking to her at first just because of her accent. Whereas I had a fairly good accent (with inversely good command of French at the time :pac:) and people would assume that I had better French because of it.

I'm not sure what that anecdote has to do with anything.

pconn062 wrote: »

I am certainly not near EU interpretation level, however I consider myself conversational fluent. I don't mean that to mean I can ask where the bathroom is , I am comfortable conversing on a lot of subjects with native speakers with the ability to get my point across clearly and could live in the country with no issues. However if I were to attend a lecture on macro-economics, I might need a dictionary , so still some work to go.

Good job, being at that level after a couple of years is no mean feat. Entirely hypothetical, but how much longer do you think you'd have to give yourself to be at native-level fluency?

Aard wrote: »

Yes it is a bit sink-or-swim in those cases. I guess aptitude is the wrong word, maybe some people have an "ear" for it....or is that even more uselessly vague I wonder. I keep being reminded of an American woman I used know in France. She had very good French -- extensive vocabulary, good command of complex sentence structure. However she had the most atrocious accent, very heavily American, with zero attempt to speak with even a semblance of a French accent. No rounded vowels, no uvular "r". Even had the nasal American twang, but failed to nasalise the French vowels when needed. It was horrible, and I'm probably being kind with that description. French people thought she was a novice when speaking to her at first just because of her accent. Whereas I had a fairly good accent (with inversely good command of French at the time :pac:) and people would assume that I had better French because of it.

I'm not sure what that anecdote has to do with anything.

As a friend once said to me "Until a French person speaks to me in English with a British accent, I will then speak French to them with a French accent"

Eazzah

German! Lovely language to learn (and you sound very intimidating too which is a plus).

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

As a friend once said to me "Until a French person speaks to me in English with a British accent, I will then speak French to them with a French accent"

The problem with French people, in my experience, is that if they get a whiff of an English accent off you they'll just start speaking English. I think they assume that all pasty Brits/Irish/Americans speak dismal French. Even if their English is even worse!

Aard wrote: »

The problem with French people, in my experience, is that if they get a whiff of an English accent off you they'll just start speaking English. I think they assume that all pasty Brits/Irish/Americans speak dismal French. Even if their English is even worse!

In my experience, it goes for anyone that has English as a second language.

Aard wrote: »

Yes it is a bit sink-or-swim in those cases. I guess aptitude is the wrong word, maybe some people have an "ear" for it....or is that even more uselessly vague I wonder. I keep being reminded of an American woman I used know in France. She had very good French -- extensive vocabulary, good command of complex sentence structure. However she had the most atrocious accent, very heavily American, with zero attempt to speak with even a semblance of a French accent. No rounded vowels, no uvular "r". Even had the nasal American twang, but failed to nasalise the French vowels when needed. It was horrible, and I'm probably being kind with that description. French people thought she was a novice when speaking to her at first just because of her accent. Whereas I had a fairly good accent (with inversely good command of French at the time :pac:) and people would assume that I had better French because of it.

I'm not sure what that anecdote has to do with anything.

And then you can have, like I do, a highly accurate accent in Italian and the ability to say "I don't speak any Italian, do you speak any English, or even French or German?" and not be believed.

Accents have a bit less to do with fluency and a lot to do with the sounds you get equipped with at an early stage. Irish people get comparatively well equipped on that front both from our particular accent, our variety of English and early access to Irish.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't attempt to get reasonably accurate because ultimately, if the natives can't understand you, communication isn't going to happen no matter how good your vocab level is.

____________________

On a general note, there are different levels of fluency which tend to be linked to general levels of education as well. You can see it even in terms of your native language - there isn't a standard level of competence across all levels of education, specialisation, origin and yet, all these people can claim native level competency in English. It's worth remembering this if you're discussing native level, near native, fluency, interpreter level competence. This exists on a continuum.

Yurt2

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I studied Mandarin for a while, it's near impossible. Spanish would be a lot easier to master.

The written language requires dog work due the characters - but the spoken language - while idiomatic is not half as challenging as other Asian languages.
Grammer rules are almost non existent which is usually the main barrier to learning non European tounges. Just for reference Des Bishop got to a decent level in a year of consistent study and I've seen many people get to that standard in a similar time-frame. I've studied Korean as well and that is a far more difficult language to reach proficiency in despite a very easy script.

fran17

Its not quite as relevant anymore but I always thought Latin was a fantastic language.

Yurt! wrote: »

The written language requires dog work due the characters - but the spoken language - while idiomatic is not half as challenging as other Asian languages.
Grammer rules are almost non existent which is usually the main barrier to learning non European tounges. Just for reference Des Bishop got to a decent level in a year of consistent study and I've seen many people get to that standard in a similar time-frame. I've studied Korean as well and that is a far more difficult language to reach proficiency in despite a very easy script.

I do like that there are no tenses. However I got in a spot of trouble for trying to say to a man "I would love to ride your horse".