Many polyglots pride themselves by saying that they speak an X number of languages. Unfortunately I have always found this term (the term "speak") extremely vague and inconclusive when it's used in this way. It's in fact more vague and inconclusive when you realize that all of the polyglots have a different definition for it.
When can we say that we speak a language?
Many might say: "It's when you're able to hold a 20 minute conversation with someone", or "It's when you have total mastery of the language and you can pass as a native" others might say: "It's when you talk fluently about many different topics". Others might even say "When you just say a word or a phrase in another language, you're already speaking another language" and, you know... it's technically correct, you are speaking in another language.
And of course, then the ads for special miracle language learning products come: "Speak a language in 3 months,1 month, 2 weeks, " And I have even read "2 days". And of course, as all marketing tricks, they never define the terms that they are using and they keep the actual efficiency of the product as vague as possible.
What do they mean by "speak"? If by that they mean the second definition that I offered, then I'm extremely impressed. But if by "speak" they mean my last definition (which is most probably the case) then the term "speak" means nothing at all to me and holds no importance as an achievement.
So, when can we say that we speak a language?
I don't know.
Personally, I believe that we are asking the wrong question. The term "speak" is a bad measure of success in a language, since it holds no absolute definition, it can mean something incredible or something unimpressive.
Most of the time, when we study a language, we have the goal of being optimal users of this language or optimal readers. But I think that being an optimal language user or reader it's just the culmination of a lot of important language learning and acquisition processes that happened before. Being an optimal language user it's just the natural conclusion of these processes.
But now the question is, what are these language learning processes?
I'm not able to describe all of them, but I'm able to describe to you the one that I think it's the most essential and important, and that is: "To know the language"
To know the language, to be acquainted with it, to know it as a good friend or, putting it with more correct terms, "To have Linguistic Knowledge".
If there's one thing I'm beginning to hate more and more these days, it's without any doubt the use of vagueness when someone is discussing a topic that requires proper definitions.
I wouldn't like to be vague at all in this post and I'm going to define to you what I mean by "knowing a language".
If you're interested, the definition that I'm going to use for this term is the one described in the book "An Introduction to Language" by Victor Fromkin, Robert Rodman and Nina Hyams. This book is heavily used in the first years of MIT's Linguistics and Philosophy curriculum and it's completely amazing, check it out, it's a magnificent introduction to the great field of Linguistics.
So, as I said, I believe we are asking the wrong questions in this paradigm. Instead of asking when do we speak the language, we should ask:
When do we actually know the language?
Linguistics Knowledge is the first thing that you should be after, it's the basis of it all. Once that you acquire Linguistic Knowledge you can move to Functionality, then Fluency and (if you're that crazy for the language and the right conditions are met) Bilingualism.
This is how An Introduction to Language defines Linguistic Knowledge. If you present the following symptoms, that means you know the language you're studying, I'm so sorry.
Linguistic Knowledge is recognized when the following criteria are met:
I'm going to explain these points in more detail.
Ok, so you obviously speak English. English is a language that you know extremely well. So, if I say the word: "Correr", you instantly know that "Correr" is not an English word, it's not a word that belongs to the English language. But how did you know this? How did you know so instantly that 'Correr' wasn't an English word?
Easy, you know which sounds belong to English and which sounds don't. "Correr", that weird double r sound is nowhere to be found in English, so you instantly conclude : that's not an English word. The same happens with signs while reading. If I write the word "Antaño". You know that's not English, what the hell is that 'ñ' thing? that sign doesn't exist in English, that's NOT English.
If you're studying a foreign language, let's say French. And if you're already able to figure out which sounds and signs belong to the French language and which sounds and signs don't, that's one sign that indicates that you know French.
In this context, we are going to define a "word" as "A sequence of articulated sounds that posses a specific meaning".
Knowing a language isn't just about recognizing individual sounds, it's also about recognizing sequence of sounds, recognizing words. Again, you know English, and if I say the word "Chaleco", you instantly know that's not an English word.
But why? I mean, let's analyze the sounds. We have "Cha", this is a sound that exists in the English language: you can find it in words such as "challenge", "charity", "charlatan". Then we have "le", again, that exists in English, you find it in words such as "lesser", "let", "lend", "elegant". Finally "co", which we can find in words like 'cop', 'cooperation', 'coalition', etc.
So, what's going on? How did you know this wasn't English? As I previously mentioned, it's not just about sounds, it's also about the sequence of these sounds. There's no word in the English language that sounds the way that 'Chaleco' does. Although its sounds exist in the English language, English words don't tend to sounds this way. The English language never uses that sort of sound sequence in its words.
If you're learning French and you're able to recognize which sequence of sounds do sound like a French word and which sequence of sounds don't, then, that's another signal that you know French.
This is where the interesting part begins. Syntax! Here is where you're able to realize if you indeed know the language. A language isn't just about sounds, it's about the sequence of these sounds (which are words), but it's still not only about words, it's also about the sequence in which these words are used.
If you know a language, you know the correct way in which people tend to form sentences and phrases.
You know English, so check this list of sentences:
Can you tell me which sentences are OK and which sentences are kind of weird?
If you answered 1,3,4,5,7 and 2,6,8. Then you have knowledge of sentences and nonsentences.
But why 2,6,8 are not sentences? Quite simply, because people don't talk that way. You've spent a lot of time with English and that time has allowed you to know that they never say stuff like that. Your experience allows you to recognize that no one speaks with that order, thus, those sentences are malformed.
While studying a foreign language, to be able to tell whether or not a sentence is using a correct structure, it's usually one of the hardest things to do. You require a good amount of exposition to the language in order to do this, and it takes time (sometimes, a lot). But, when you do it, it's one of the most remarkable achievements in language learning.
Knowledge of Senteces and Nonsetences means that you have acquired the syntax of this language (the syntax! probably the most important aspect of any language), if you have managed to do this, congratulate yourself, because this is quite an achievement.
Finally, knowing a language is not just about knowing the sounds, the words and the syntax. But it's also about using all of these elements in order to express yourself creatively. As the dialogue puts it: To create sentences that have never been uttered before. Or, to create sentences that we have never heard before. Creativity of Linguistic Knowledge is one of the most vital aspect if you want to express yourself or survive in another language.
I guess that's the most impressive thing about the human language. The fact that it's all about creativity. We're constantly creating sentences out of thin air in order to express ourselves in given situations, sentences that probably have never been said before or that we have never heard. Other animals also posses complex communicative systems, but in those communicative systems there's not a lot of creativity involved. Our langauge demands an enormous amount of creativity in order to use it. A non-creative being will never be able to use a human language properly, never.
And finally, if you're able to be creative with the foreign language that you're learning. If you can constantly form original sentences with a correct use of syntax and you posses all of the other criteria too, then, congratulations, you know the language.
As you can see, knowing a language it's not something easy. A language is an extremely complex entity. Getting to know a language is like getting to know a person. It's going to require time, exposition and different situations or approaches so you can see the multiple faces that this language really has.
After doing all of that stuff, you'll know that you know this language.
Best of luck in your language learning and thanks for reading.
When can we say that we speak a language?
Many might say: "It's when you're able to hold a 20 minute conversation with someone", or "It's when you have total mastery of the language and you can pass as a native" others might say: "It's when you talk fluently about many different topics". Others might even say "When you just say a word or a phrase in another language, you're already speaking another language" and, you know... it's technically correct, you are speaking in another language.
And of course, then the ads for special miracle language learning products come: "Speak a language in 3 months,1 month, 2 weeks, " And I have even read "2 days". And of course, as all marketing tricks, they never define the terms that they are using and they keep the actual efficiency of the product as vague as possible.
What do they mean by "speak"? If by that they mean the second definition that I offered, then I'm extremely impressed. But if by "speak" they mean my last definition (which is most probably the case) then the term "speak" means nothing at all to me and holds no importance as an achievement.
So, when can we say that we speak a language?
I don't know.
Personally, I believe that we are asking the wrong question. The term "speak" is a bad measure of success in a language, since it holds no absolute definition, it can mean something incredible or something unimpressive.
Most of the time, when we study a language, we have the goal of being optimal users of this language or optimal readers. But I think that being an optimal language user or reader it's just the culmination of a lot of important language learning and acquisition processes that happened before. Being an optimal language user it's just the natural conclusion of these processes.
But now the question is, what are these language learning processes?
I'm not able to describe all of them, but I'm able to describe to you the one that I think it's the most essential and important, and that is: "To know the language"
To know the language, to be acquainted with it, to know it as a good friend or, putting it with more correct terms, "To have Linguistic Knowledge".
If there's one thing I'm beginning to hate more and more these days, it's without any doubt the use of vagueness when someone is discussing a topic that requires proper definitions.
I wouldn't like to be vague at all in this post and I'm going to define to you what I mean by "knowing a language".
If you're interested, the definition that I'm going to use for this term is the one described in the book "An Introduction to Language" by Victor Fromkin, Robert Rodman and Nina Hyams. This book is heavily used in the first years of MIT's Linguistics and Philosophy curriculum and it's completely amazing, check it out, it's a magnificent introduction to the great field of Linguistics.
So, as I said, I believe we are asking the wrong questions in this paradigm. Instead of asking when do we speak the language, we should ask:
When do we actually know the language?
Linguistics Knowledge is the first thing that you should be after, it's the basis of it all. Once that you acquire Linguistic Knowledge you can move to Functionality, then Fluency and (if you're that crazy for the language and the right conditions are met) Bilingualism.
This is how An Introduction to Language defines Linguistic Knowledge. If you present the following symptoms, that means you know the language you're studying, I'm so sorry.
Linguistic Knowledge is recognized when the following criteria are met:
- Knowledge of the Sound System.
- Knowledge of Words.
- Knowledge of Sentences and Nonsentences.
- Creativity of Linguistic Knowledge and Performance.
I'm going to explain these points in more detail.
- Knowledge of the Sound System:
"Part of knowing a language means knowing what sounds (or signs) are in that language and what sounds are not."
Ok, so you obviously speak English. English is a language that you know extremely well. So, if I say the word: "Correr", you instantly know that "Correr" is not an English word, it's not a word that belongs to the English language. But how did you know this? How did you know so instantly that 'Correr' wasn't an English word?
Easy, you know which sounds belong to English and which sounds don't. "Correr", that weird double r sound is nowhere to be found in English, so you instantly conclude : that's not an English word. The same happens with signs while reading. If I write the word "Antaño". You know that's not English, what the hell is that 'ñ' thing? that sign doesn't exist in English, that's NOT English.
If you're studying a foreign language, let's say French. And if you're already able to figure out which sounds and signs belong to the French language and which sounds and signs don't, that's one sign that indicates that you know French.
- Knowledge of Words:
"When you know a language, you know words in that language, that is, which sequence of sounds are related to specific meanings and which are not."
In this context, we are going to define a "word" as "A sequence of articulated sounds that posses a specific meaning".
Knowing a language isn't just about recognizing individual sounds, it's also about recognizing sequence of sounds, recognizing words. Again, you know English, and if I say the word "Chaleco", you instantly know that's not an English word.
But why? I mean, let's analyze the sounds. We have "Cha", this is a sound that exists in the English language: you can find it in words such as "challenge", "charity", "charlatan". Then we have "le", again, that exists in English, you find it in words such as "lesser", "let", "lend", "elegant". Finally "co", which we can find in words like 'cop', 'cooperation', 'coalition', etc.
So, what's going on? How did you know this wasn't English? As I previously mentioned, it's not just about sounds, it's also about the sequence of these sounds. There's no word in the English language that sounds the way that 'Chaleco' does. Although its sounds exist in the English language, English words don't tend to sounds this way. The English language never uses that sort of sound sequence in its words.
If you're learning French and you're able to recognize which sequence of sounds do sound like a French word and which sequence of sounds don't, then, that's another signal that you know French.
- Knowledge of Sentence and Nonsentence:
"When you know a language,you know the sounds, the words and the rules for their combination. Our knowledge of a language determines which strings of words are well-formed and which strings are not."
This is where the interesting part begins. Syntax! Here is where you're able to realize if you indeed know the language. A language isn't just about sounds, it's about the sequence of these sounds (which are words), but it's still not only about words, it's also about the sequence in which these words are used.
If you know a language, you know the correct way in which people tend to form sentences and phrases.
You know English, so check this list of sentences:
- John kissed the old lady who owned the shaggy dog.
- Who owned the little shaggy dog John kissed the old lady.
- John is difficult to love.
- It's difficult to love John.
- John is anxious to go.
- It's anxious to go John.
- John, who was a student, flunked his exams.
- Exams his flunked student a was who John.
Can you tell me which sentences are OK and which sentences are kind of weird?
If you answered 1,3,4,5,7 and 2,6,8. Then you have knowledge of sentences and nonsentences.
But why 2,6,8 are not sentences? Quite simply, because people don't talk that way. You've spent a lot of time with English and that time has allowed you to know that they never say stuff like that. Your experience allows you to recognize that no one speaks with that order, thus, those sentences are malformed.
While studying a foreign language, to be able to tell whether or not a sentence is using a correct structure, it's usually one of the hardest things to do. You require a good amount of exposition to the language in order to do this, and it takes time (sometimes, a lot). But, when you do it, it's one of the most remarkable achievements in language learning.
Knowledge of Senteces and Nonsetences means that you have acquired the syntax of this language (the syntax! probably the most important aspect of any language), if you have managed to do this, congratulate yourself, because this is quite an achievement.
- Creativity of Linguistic Knowledge and Performance:
"So, are you saying that you were the best friend of the woman who was married to the man who represented your husband in divorce?
In the history of speech, that sentence has never been uttered before."
Finally, knowing a language is not just about knowing the sounds, the words and the syntax. But it's also about using all of these elements in order to express yourself creatively. As the dialogue puts it: To create sentences that have never been uttered before. Or, to create sentences that we have never heard before. Creativity of Linguistic Knowledge is one of the most vital aspect if you want to express yourself or survive in another language.
I guess that's the most impressive thing about the human language. The fact that it's all about creativity. We're constantly creating sentences out of thin air in order to express ourselves in given situations, sentences that probably have never been said before or that we have never heard. Other animals also posses complex communicative systems, but in those communicative systems there's not a lot of creativity involved. Our langauge demands an enormous amount of creativity in order to use it. A non-creative being will never be able to use a human language properly, never.
And finally, if you're able to be creative with the foreign language that you're learning. If you can constantly form original sentences with a correct use of syntax and you posses all of the other criteria too, then, congratulations, you know the language.
As you can see, knowing a language it's not something easy. A language is an extremely complex entity. Getting to know a language is like getting to know a person. It's going to require time, exposition and different situations or approaches so you can see the multiple faces that this language really has.
After doing all of that stuff, you'll know that you know this language.
Best of luck in your language learning and thanks for reading.