Talk:Monolingualism

Untitled

Doesn't γλοσσα/γλωσσα(sp?) mean tongue? The artice Glottis says a glottis is the space between the vocal cords. My high school Greek is rusty but why glotta?

I would like to know to what extent one can call another a monoglot. I'm fluent in only one language, but I consider myself able to speak French and Spanish to a quite advanced standard. Does monoglottism cover those who only speak one language without speaking any others at all, and/or those who are fluent in only one but are near-fluent in others? 81.77.111.231 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted in list of noted polyglots claims of fluency in many languages are suspect. I think basic competence in additional languages and native fluency in one or two is a reasonable goal. The is especially true if your native language is one like English which I believe has the largest number of words. The Langenscheidt pocket (classical) Greek dictionary shows both glossa and glotta as being "tongue, speech, dialect'.

From what I understand unless you learn multiple languages simultaneous as a first set, only with intensive speech therapy can your speech become like that of a native speaker (i.e. 'accentless' or at least not having a foreign accent).

Lycurgus 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this term is so difficult. If you're raised in a country where everyone you ever meet speaks only your native language, and you read no foreign books, films etc, and visit no foreign countries, then you're a monoglot. You may be aware of other languages, and you may even know how to say Qui in French, but you can only communicate in a single language. The fact your brain hasn't been exposed to thought patterns in any other language than your first is probably why that study reached its conclusion (but what do I know?) 85.227.226.168 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The belief about English having "the most words" isn't true in any meaningful sense; see http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/06/counting_words, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.33.85 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Accent is largely irrelevant to fluency. The two aspects haven't much to do with each other. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

perhaps what?

"and are perhaps more likely to believe their native language is culturally and economically influential than those who understand or speak more than one language[citation needed]."

I propose this part is removed. This reads like a simple rumour and has no place on Wikipedia unless verified, and even then the "perhaps" must go. 85.227.226.168 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

The section of Belgium seems a bit biased in that it only seems to take in account the "immigrant language" of Turkish, disregarding the high-prestige native language of French, and other high-prestige European languages, such as English and German. The viewpoint of Turkish would likely still be prejudiced, but it isn't really per se a sign of promoted monolingualism. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation

This whole article appears to violate NPOV because it is one large slam against monolinguism and people who cannot learn a second language (something that appears to be omitted from the discussion), and it's all in favor of bilingualism. What happened to neutral point of view? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird source used

I'm not very experienced with citations and sources on Wikipedia, so I'm not editing this, but the section "Verbal and non-verbal cognitive development" cites what appears to be a Chinese news site as a source on what I'm fairly certain is this 2012 study ("Bilingual Effects on Cognitive and Linguistic Development: Role of Language, Cultural Background, and Education"). The Chinese news article doesn't provide a link to the study, and I thought it bizarre a non-English source was used in the first place. Like I said, I have no experience, so I'm putting this info here in case someone else would like to edit this. Or if I one day learn how to Wikipedia and do it myself. No one looks at talk pages anyways so the latter is entirely possible. Cheers. --2602:306:C5A6:1480:9DC8:E3BB:C58E:4384 (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monolingualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822104004/http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/digestglobal.html to http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/digestglobal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)