How long does it take for an English speaker to be proficient in (insert the language you would like to learn here) ?
I found an interesting list from the National Virtual Translation Center’s website about a year ago. The list had categories of languages based on their difficulty to native speakers of English. Much to my dismay, I can’t just provide you the link because it is no longer online. So I will try my best to relay everything here along with my interpretation.
The list was supposedly created by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the Department of State. Its purpose was to group languages based on the length of time it takes for an FSI student to achieve Speaking 3: General Professional Proficiency in Speaking (S3) and Reading 3: General Professional Proficiency in Reading (R3). Detailed information on these proficiencies will be provided in a later blog.
Naturally, the list only applies to languages taught at the FSI. The student profile at the FSI is: almost 40 years old, native English speaker, has a good aptitude for formal language study, and has knowledge of several foreign languages (please see below for my interpretation for this student attribute). In addition to class hours, FSI students dedicate 3-4 hours everyday for self-study.
So here is my interpretation of the list. I put the list here for the purpose of educational discussion. It is just a general guideline, not a definite rule. Depending on your motivation (notice how I put this factor first!), language aptitude, available time, age, knowledge of other foreign languages, and other factors, you might take more or less time to achieve the S3 and R3 proficiencies. For example, you know from my previous post http://arcticchill.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/scandinavian-languages-danish-norwegian-and-swedish/ that the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) are mutually intelligible. If you are already S3 and R3 in one of the 3 Scandinavian languages, then you will NOT need another 23-24 weeks to learn the other 2.
Do not be scared or discouraged if you are interested in languages from Categories III and IV. You just need some more time to achieve S3 and R3 proficiencies. On the other hand, DO NOT think that languages from Categories I and II require little or no effort. Some of these languages have false friends (words that look like English words but have very different meanings). English is NOT mutually intelligible with any language from Categories I and II.
Category I (languages closely related to English, 23-24 weeks or 575-600 class hours): Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish
Category II (36 weeks or 900 class hours unless otherwise noted): German (30 weeks or 750 class hours), Indonesian, Malaysian, Swahili
Category III (languages with significant linguistic and/or cultural differences from English, 44 weeks or 1100 class hours): Albanian, Amharic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Croatian, Czech, Estonian*, Finnish*, Georgian*, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian*, Icelandic, Khmer, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Mongolian*, Nepali, Pashto, Persian (Dari, Farsi, Tajik), Polish, Russian, Serbian, Sinhalese, Slovak, Slovenian, Tagalog, Thai*, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uzbek, Vietnamese*, Xhosa, Zulu
Category IV (languages which are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers and requires 2nd year of study in-country, 88 weeks or 2200 class hours): Arabic, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin), Japanese*, Korean
*According to the author of the list, languages followed by asterisks are typically somewhat more difficult for native English speakers to learn than other languages in the same category. Again, this is a generalization.
I don’t know if you can use this list in reverse. Take German as an example. I have heard that it is easier for a German speaker to learn English than for an English speaker to learn German. I have no way of verifying such claim. You probably can still use this list to get a general idea. Nevertheless, I hope that you find this list helpful!
Scandinavian Languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish)
According to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland), http://www.norden.org/en/the-nordic-region/language/language , Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, and Icelandic belong to the North Germanic “Nordic” branch of the Indo-European language family. Furthermore, speakers of Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish) http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/areas-of-co-operation/language are expected to be able to understand each other because these 3 languages are so closely related. The best example is the working language policy of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are the working languages. Translation is offered between Finnish, Icelandic, and Scandinavian, but not between the Scandinavian languages.
I have limited exposure to the Scandinavian languages. Norwegian (I am only talking about Bokmål here) seems to be between Danish and Swedish. In fact, there is a humorous saying that Norwegian is written Danish with Swedish pronunciation. There is another saying that Danish is written Norwegian with German and French pronunciation. There is some truth to these jokes. Written forms of Danish and Norwegian look extremely similar. It is almost like British English and American English.
Tests have shown that the Norwegian people are better than Danes and Swedes at understanding non-native languages within the Scandinavian language group. Please keep in mind that we are talking about the standard versions of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Mutual intelligibility is not guaranteed with dialects. But yes, if you learn a Scandinavian language, you are learning a good amount of the other two at the same time. It is almost like buy 1 get 2 free.
Language is a huge component of culture. With linguistic similarity, it is crystal clear that Iceland and Finland are not part of Scandinavia. Icelandic is in the same North Germanic “Nordic” group of the Indo-European family with the Scandinavian languages, but it is not similar enough for mutual intelligibility. Finnish, on the other hand, is not even Indo-European! For reference purpose:
Indo-European -> North Germanic (Nordic) -> Scandinavian (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish), Icelandic, Faroese.
If more people, especially my fellow Americans, have exposure to Scandinavian languages, then there would be a lot less, even no confusion between Scandinavia and Nordic countries. The benefit of broader understanding of world cultures also applies to learning other foreign languages. Nobody disputes the importance of the English language as it is the international language. Complement your English proficiency with one or more foreign languages will open doors for you!
Scandinavia vs Nordic Countries Part II: Inconsistencies
Based on the research I did for Part I http://arcticchill.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/scandinavia-vs-nordic-countries-part-i-what-is-the-difference/ , we know that
1. Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
2. Nordic countries are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland.
These definitions are given by the governments of all 5 Nordic countries. None of them are involved in any territorial dispute with each other. So the definitions should be very clear, right? No, not all the time.
If you are interested in buying a guidebook on Scandinavia, then you will find that most guidebooks for the Scandinavian region include Iceland and/or Finland in their definition for Scandinavia. Michelin Green Guides is the only exception because it correctly titles its guidebook http://www.amazon.com/Scandinavia-Finland-Michelin-Green-Guides/dp/2067123300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271612501&sr=8-1 “Scandinavia & Finland.” While it has Danish, Faroese, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish phrases, Lonely Planet’s Scandinavian phrasebook http://www.amazon.com/Scandinavian-Phrasebook-Lonely-Planet/dp/1741046033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271612722&sr=1-1 does clarify in introduction that Scandinavia refers to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. It really should be called Nordic instead of Scandinavian phrasebook.
Maybe you decide to get brochures from an official source such as VisitDenmark.com. Well, VisitDenmark.com http://www.visitdenmark.com/usa/en-us/menu/turist/turistinformation/denmark-magazine/denmark-magazine.htm tells you to click on “order brochures” to fulfill your request. Clicking on that link takes you to http://www.goscandinavia.com/usa/en-us/menu/scandinavia/brochures/order-brochures/order-brochures.htm . You eventually find the front page, http://www.goscandinavia.com/usa/en-us/menu/scandinavia/go-scandinavia.htm , and see that this is the official site of Scandinavian Tourist Boards of North America. Wait a minute, it lists all 5 Nordic countries as Scandinavian?!
Now, if you had picked Australia, Japan, or China as the countries you are travelling from (or country version) at VisitDenmark.com, you would see the following on http://www.visitscandinavia.com.au/AboutScandinavia/Scandinavia.aspx :
Scandinavia is located in the northern part of the European Continent, and consists of three countries: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The term “Northern Europe” usually refers to a total of five countries: the three nations of Scandinavia, and neighbouring Finland and Iceland.
So you now wonder if the governments of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland are confused. Actually, they are not.
As part of my explanation, I must focus your attention on an entity called Nordic Investment Bank (NIB). From both the member countries http://www.nib.int/about_nib/member_countries , and history http://www.nib.int/about_nib/history sections, you see that NIB was created by the 5 Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland in 1976. In 2005, however, the 3 Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NIB. But there was no need for NIB to change its name because it is still mostly Nordic: the Nordic countries subscribe about 96.5% of authorized capital. It would be more accurate to rename the NIB to something like the Nordic and Baltic Investment Bank, but it would not make a huge difference.
Back to the Scandinavian Tourist Board (STB). The STB is fully owned by the national tourist boards of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, http://www.visitscandinavia.com.au/StbInfo.aspx . According to the Nordic Council, around 80% of Nordic population have Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish as their mother tongue http://www.norden.org/en/the-nordic-region/language/language . So the Nordic countries are mostly Scandinavian. Despite including Nordic, but non-Scandinavian countries, the Scandinavian Tourist Boards of North America are still mostly Scandinavian. It would be more accurate to change the name to the Nordic Tourist Boards of North America. But perhaps the 3 real Scandinavian countries provide most of the funding and want “Scandinavian” instead of “Nordic” in the name? I don’t know.
I think another reason why travel guidebooks and even the national tourist boards of Nordic countries use the word “Scandinavian” when “Nordic” is more appropriate is for marketing purpose. Many people outside of the Scandinavian and Nordic regions don’t know the difference between Scandinavia and Nordic countries. Americans in particular are notorious for not knowing much about world geography. It is, however, easier and better for the Nordic tourist boards to cater to their customers. You know the saying, customers are always right even when they are wrong! Out of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are very close to each other geographically and it is very easy for tourists to visit more than 1 country. So it is not a bad idea to put Finland in a guidebook for Scandinavia….as long as the publisher titles it correctly!
I personally go with how the Nordic people identify themselves. Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Nordic countries are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland.
