the young Swedes speak English so well!

I just came back from dinner here in Växjö Sweden. The waitress spoke English perfectly. She was also working on French. All the young people you meet are fluent, totally fluent, in English, and often interested in other languages. They want to travel and see countries, in Europe or in Asia or elsewhere.

I am sure that the teaching of English has not improved compared to 30 years ago, but English skills seem to have improved. One reason is that all TV programs are in the original language. Another reason is attitude. It is impressive.

English dominates. At our restaurant there was a group of French business people meeting with their Swedish counterparts. The language used was English. This undoubtedly disappoints some people in France, but it is a fact of life.

I read in the paper that there is a group within the European Union who are trying to have French designated as the international language of law within the European Union because , they claim, "French is the most precise language". They want the French version of all contracts and agreements to be the binding version.

I love French, but this is just nonsense, in my view. All countries have laws written in their own languages and manage just fine. Contracting parties of different language groups will make their own decisions as to which language version of a contract will be considered binding. I suspect it will often be English, a language that is more likely to be understood by both sides.

Comments

[hiroshi]

Steve san, That is what I often think. A lot of the young Swedes speak English so well!
When I was doing sightseeings in Romania with a group of tourists, an Enligsh guy was soooo impressed with Enlgish a young swede speak, saying that he speaks clearer English than ordinary English.
Most Swedes I encountered on travel invariably speak fluent English, English fluent enough to impress a native speaker of English. Even some of the teengers who just graduate from a high school speak pretty good English. In contrast, a majority of Japanese, even those from prestigious schools, as you know well, speak terribly unnatural, stilted English. ( I am talking about myself as well).
What have we studied after years of Education is my yearlong question. There must be something fundamentally wrong with the education we have received???

Curious about how they have learned English, I asked one of my Swedish friedns. Yet, the answer I got from him was not unusual one at all. They just study grammar in the same way that most Japanese do. What are then the differences between the two?
As Steve san said on your podcast ( sorry, I cant rememebr which contents I downloaded from the linguist library), attitude is 70 percent of what it takes to be successful.
That is, Swedes seem to have a lot more positive, open attitude toward other languages and cultures, which I think is one of the most contributing factors of making it easier for them to embrace and learn languages. On the other hand, in Japan where national seclusion had lasted for so long, it seems that some Japanese are still reluctant to accept foreingers and English as a part of our community ( which is why I often hear my friends, gaijin complain that they are still being treated as outsiders). Aside from languge learning methods, it is this mental block we have that undermines proficiency in English or any languege in general, I think.
Chauvinistic attitude is in most cases harmful in language learning.
For instance, I heard from my french friend that in a history class teacheres still teach students that French was superior to English in the era of Napoleon hundreds of years ago! That is totally outdated and as nonsense as Japanase assuming that Japanese is the most difficult langaguage to learn in the world. In this sense, Swedes, unlike these people, may be less conditinoed by school and society, so that they are less chauvinistic?

Therefore, the changes we ( whose langangue skills are still poor) have to make would discard the narrow-minded, chauvinistic attitude and learn to accept a new language and culture as a part of our psyche. As you said, we have to not only free ourselves from grammar analysis but also from a narrow, patriotic, twisted identity. That may be one of the keys to successful langauge learning.

[jemini]

I've met Swedes in Shanghai and Los Angeles and they spoke English fluently. They also told me, as you pointed out, that they watch American, French or what ever programs with only subtitles and that's how they learn different languages. But when I ask them when do they ever use English, they say only when they are traveling or speaking with foreigners. So in other words, beside the English classes they have at school, they are primarily learning English just by listening. I do beleive this to be the case. Why? Because you don't learn correct slang in the classroom. Many of them use slang as if they were born to it. So that probably years of just listening.

As for the French getting their language designated as the international language of law within the European Union, well, that's just plain stupid. German is a more precise languge. Besides, how many countries must the French language be thrown out of before the French realize, no one wants it.

[Chris]

Hiroshi, your English is actually pretty awesome.

Every Swede I've met has had very good to native-like English. Even a Swedish student in a class last year had a pretty good command of the language, despite having just come from Sweden and immersed himself in an English-speaking country here.

The same applies to the Norwegians, maybe even more so. And the Finns too. Again, there was a Finnish exchange student in my class the year before who developed a rather good command of English. Sadly, better than a lot of native speakers around here. I guess there's something about Scandanavia, huh? From what I know, they begin learning English at a very young age, around five to six, so their mind is still very open and absorbent to a new language.

As for the French comment, who knows what possessed them to really come up with that. Maybe they're worried about its status or something? Probably not, but who knows.

Also, Steve, thanks for the reply in the previous blog.

[Max Blommé]

Actually we don't start learning English in Sweden until the age of 9 or 10. Furthermore English instruction in Sweden (at least when I went to school) is quite traditional. We study grammar and word lists and what not. The thing is we don't learn English in school. As mentioned we learn it from years of watching american tv-shows. Most kids like watching TV and in Sweden a very large part of what is shown on TV consists of subtitled American TV-shows. Furthermore, phonetically and grammatically Swedish is reasonably close to English, so you can pick up quite a lot of English by reading the Swedish subtitles at the same time as you are hearing the English dialouge. This doesn't work as well for languages very different from your native one. I don't think I could learn Korean for instance just by watching Korean movies with Swedish subtitles.
Not all Swedes, however, are completely perfect in English. I see quite a lot of not very native like constructions written by Swedes. However those of us who liked English and listened intently to those american TV shows and then followed up by reading a lot of English books are generally at a fairly high level.

[kmk]

Steve,
As often you treated information with innocence and a certain lack of diplomacy.
Let me remind you the two major legal systems in the world today :
-Common Law (USA and part of the Commonwealth)
-Civil Law (the rest of the world)
When fighting against the use of english in the European Law, European leaders (not only french) try to avoid the importation of the Common Law in a Civil Law continent by powerful anglo-saxon lawyers. Because in the world there is no english speaking country that doesn't use the Common Law.
The problem is currently the same in South America, China and Japon.
Out of the American world, diplomacy is never black-and-white or cut-and-dried.

[jemini]

To Kmk,

Thanks for the info. I always wondered why some countries have drop french as a language. I always thought it had to do with national pride. But now I can see stopping the use of the Napoleonic code as a motivation.

Apparently it has less to do with French being or not being precise and more to do with getting everyone using French law and logic that has that group pressing for the change.

I wonder if there is a middle ground that would satify everyone. I doubt it.

[kmk]

To jemini,
Napoleonic code is only one exemple of Civil Law. Don't focus to much your thought on France and rather check the Bürgerliches Recht which is also a good exemple.

For your information, here is the definition a the Civil law :
System of law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis prevalent in continental Europe, Central and South America, South Africa, Scotland, Québec and Louisiana. In this sense the term is opposed to common law.

[Steve]

kmk,

Thanks for the enlightening comment that in diplomacy things are not always black and white. This is a new and helpful concept.

I am opposed to the hegemony of English and that is one of my motivations in writing the book The Linguist and in creating a new version of The Linguist which will help people learn many languages, not just English. I believe that a modern person can easily learn to speak 2 or 3 languages, as long as he stays away from traditional methods of language instruction. This should be obvious from my blog.

With my usual innocence and lack of tact I have to say that I do not believe that this move to enshrine French as the language of law in Europe (see http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/03/02/french_is_urged_on_eu_as_the_language_of_law/) has much, if anything, to do with protecting Europe from American lawyers or Britísh common law.

Lawyers are good at protecting their own turf. Canadian lawyers, gradates from Canadian law schools have a monopoly on the practice of law in English speaking Canada.

I suspect that all domestic law in European contries is in the local language, and only local lawyers practice in these countries.

It is when we move into trade, finance, construction, joint ventures, take overs etc. that international agreements and contracts are needed. That is where third languages are needed. I suspect that the parties to these agreements will want the freedom to decide which language version of these agreements will be binding.

I suspect, in all innocence, that the motives of M. Druon of l'Academie Francaise is the same as that which inspired President Chirac to walk out of a European conference just because a French Eurocrat made his presentation in English, a language that most of his audience understood. This motive is language chauvinism.