MP-lingualism - It's not what you think!

[Aurolyn Luykx]

Hamo,
not to steal Anthea's thunder (which I'm sure is
forthcoming), but here goes...

> Just what do you consider a large proportion of Hong
> Kongers? Five,  ten, or fifteen percent who one
might consider trilingual? Ten, twenty,  or thirty
percent who one might consider bilingual? For this,
all of  Hong Kong should be considered a trilingual,
biliterate territory?

If you mean "bilingual" rather than "biliterate", by
all means. "Bilingual countries" in which all or even
most of the inhabitants are bilingual are certainly
the exception rather than the rule. But more
importantly, I think you're confusing different levels
of analysis -- individual lg. ABILITIES with larger
territorial lg. ECOLOGIES. For this reason, some
prefer to consider that "individuals are bilingual (or
not), countries are diglossic". Theoretically you
could have a completely diglossic nation with hardly
any bilingual individuals in it.

> 3) How is it that a nation can read, what is not
> spoken? It is quite  easy. One develops a spoken
form of L2 that employs an L1 phonological  system. In
Japan it is called katakana-English and written above
English language text to facilitate pronunciation.

Well, clearly "reading" (like language!) is more about
comprehension and meaningful use, than mechanical
pronunciation. With a pronunciation guide, I could
sound out printed Yoruba or Japanese or whatever, but
doesn't doesn't mean I speak OR read that language!

> What most Hong Kongers have mastered is a fairly
> good verbal understanding of the English alphabet.

???

> East  Asian languages are far more graphic than
their
> Western counterparts.

PLEASE don't confuse languages with writing systems. I
thought we were talking about bilingualism here! As
Anthea pointed out before, the question of literacy is
quite a different one. Plenty (dare I say millions?)
of people are bilingual without being literate in ANY
language.

> As such, one often understands what one cannot speak
even in one's  native language.

What??

> 4) Your functional definition of bilingualism is
> exactly what I am  seeking to eschew with
mp-lingualism. I can tell a lost Hong Konger how  to
get from one point to the next in his own native
tongue, but I  hardly consider myself bilingual in
Cantonese.

You still haven't explained what's wrong with that
"functional definition of bilingualism." Sounds to me
like you ARE bilingual in Cantonese (at least
incipiently so), just not FLUENT.

>  most people who depend on a
> particular language for their livelihood find
> themselves highly
> disadvantaged, if they cannot read what others can.

It totally depends on what sort of society they live
in. No one's denying that literacy is a distinct
advantage for many, but it's irrelevant for assessing
bilingualism per se.

> 6) If defining a multilingual society means that
> different people speak  different languages, and
some people speak more than one, then most  societies
are likely multilingual.

!!Precisely!!

Aurolyn


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail