I am bilingual
Recientemente tuve una pequeña discusión con una persona que dice ser bilingue. Esta persona, como muchas en este país (USA), habla, lee y escribe relativamente bien inglés. Sin embargo habla "Spanglish", no español, lee y escribe muy mal el español. Es una persona nacida y criada aquí y el poco español que habla lo aprendió de sus padres, de origen mejicano.
Para mi, una persona bilingue (inglés-español), es una persona que habla, lee y escribe bien los dos idiomas, punto.
Me gustaría conocer su opinión. Gracias
Recently I had a little discussion with someone that says she is bilingual. This person, like many in this country (USA), speaks, read and write relatively well English. However, she speaks Spanglish, not Spanish and read and write very badly her Spanish. She was born and raised here in America and the poor Spanish she speaks she learned it from her parents, originally from Mexico.
In my opinion, a bilingual person (English-Spanish), is a person that speaks, reads and writes well in both languages, period.
I would like to know your opinion. Thank you.
24 Answers
Creo que si una persona puede arreglarse bien en dos idiomas, pues es bilingue. O sea, si puede explicarse sin impedimentos, y a una rapidez normal, y si lo que dice suena bien. Leer y escribir son otras cosas. Hay mucha gente que no saben leer o escribir aun en su lengua materna. Hablar y entender forman parte de la naturaleza humana, pero escribir y leer son cosas que hay que ser enseñado.
I think that if a person can get along well in two languages, then they are bilingual. That is, if they can express themselves easily, at a normal speed, and if what they say does not sound awkward. Reading and writing is a different thing. There are lots of people who can´t read or write even in their native language, but we would still call them fluent. Speaking and understanding are part of human nature, but reading and writing are things that must be taught.
In my opinion, a bilingual person (English-Spanish), is a person that speaks, reads and writes well in both languages, period.
I think that when phrased this way, the question becomes one of degree - what or who determines the "how well?" I find this definition somewhat troubling, especially if you extend this definition to include monolingual children. For example, if my six-year old son demonstrates a superior ability to communicate, orally and in writing, and can read at an advanced level compared to his peers, then he will be considered exceptional. This is because children of the same age level (although not necessarily of the same experience level), do not show the same level of proficiency. In this context, my child would be considered proficient, yet if you were to compare him to college graduates, your evaluation of his abilities would likely change.
On the other hand, when I was growing up, there was an older man in my town who everybody used to call "Popeye" (often "pops" for short). It would not be much of a stretch to say that pops probably knew at least half the people in my town. Everybody liked him because he was outgoing, friendly and generous (he might walk ten miles just to help someone out), but above all Pops used to tell great stories - he was a real talker. Later, when I was in college, I remember finding out something about Pops that I never knew before. You see, I ran into Pops at my school, and when I saw him, I waved to him, but when I did, something seemed different - almost wrong. For the first time in my life (and possibly in his) Pops actually seemed to be at a loss for words. I soon found out the reason for this awkwardness. After 73 years, living on this earth Pops had decided that it was time that he finally learn to read and write. I was shocked that someone who had lived his life as a sort of local celebrity based on his "gift of gab" could barely spell his own name.
I don't know if this long-winded digression has made my point, but what I am asking is this. What is the determinant or standard of fluency, and is this a fair determinant of the concept of lingualism (whether it be monolingualism, bilingualism or multilingualism)?
A definition such as this, based on proficiency, would leave most children and many adults, excuse the expression, without a pot to piss in. It would require the invention of a new word along the lines of alingual or nullingual to describe them. But I believe that this would be an unfair representation of children who certainly speak the language, yet, due to lack of experience, do not comprehend at the level of a mono-, bi- or multilingual speaker. More importantly, it would be a gross mischaracterization of a man like pops and the untold thousands of others who have lived their lives speaking a language, yet lack ability in one or more areas. My point is this: Both pops and my six-year old son certainly speak and understand English. There is no question in my mind about this.
Because of this, I'm not sure that literacy nor level of education should be the qualifying determinant (although, certainly, there are varying levels of proficiency and skill) as to whether or not someone speaks a language (lingualism). In the end (and what I probably should have said in the first place) is that it is probably more realistic to classify a person´s lingualism based on a single factor - does that person have the ability to actually think in a given language. That is, is there a direct path from the words/symbols of the language to the actual ideas or concepts that these symbols represent. And is there a direct path from the mind´s ideas/concepts to the symbols/words of spoken/written language.
If that girl you were talking about were sent back to México and forced to adapt to her surroundings by taking the -glish off the Span- I'm sure she would be able to in a heartbeat.
I think it is normal for a "bilingual" person to be better at one language than another, and the balance of fluency can and will shift according to the environment.
It is also possible for a bilingual person to be bad at both languages.
I've also known a few people who were supposedly "fluent" in English that have had advanced studies in English Lit/language studies/English language education, even Ph. D level, but I found their spoken English painful to hear and their written English painful to read in that they affected a mastery of the language that was dissonant, grammatically and idiomatically off and thus not fluent. So while on paper (and in their heads) they were fluent, they in reality had no fluidity at all.
Fluency and bilingualism are relative, with a whole lot of gray areas. Hardly, if at all, black and white.
I agree.
In my opinion, a person would have to dominate or master both languages to be called "bilingual." When I say a bilingual person must "master" both languages I don't mean that one must master it at a university level, but rather, at a level where the majority of people speaking the language can easily understand him. A person would be considered fluent in a language if, for example, he could be hired at a job that required that language.
Spanglish does not, in any way, demonstrate a mastery of Spanish.
I was browsing through the views expressed regarding bilingualism and want to pen down some thoughts from a different part of the world.
I am from India and in this country more often not, most people are multilingual. Take my own case. I had studied in a missionary school where the medium of instruction was English. In India, although English is the lingua franca, the national language is Hindi and I am very fluent at it. I studied lelementary French in school and in my college years, I had obtained a Diploma in the advanced level of the language. I ancestrally belong to South India and my mother tongue is Telugu. I am fond of poetry and have a intermediate level knowledge of Urdu. I am 63 years of age and have lately taken up Spanish on my own. How tough is is to for me to switch from one language to another?. Well, I have no problem in switching from English to Hindi or to my mother tongue. Frankly, while I feel it easy to pen my thoughts and converse in English; while the underlying thought or feeling is always in English, the sub conscious is able to convey the expression in the other languages that I know, as per the nuance of that language. However, what is important to realize is that the while the mind always tends to focus on one’s language of choice, the beauty of the other known language(s) is never lost sight of. That to my mind is the essence of being bi or multiligual.
The traditional meaning of "bilingual" (as used by people writing about language acquisition, child psychology and linguistics) is equally adept/comfortable in two languages (of which, one is the person's "native" language"). The emphasis being on the equality (literacy is not a requirement). Thus, if I am reasonably fluent in Spanish and French (I'm not, actually my Spanish is much better than my French) that doesn't matter because neither holds a candle to to my knowledge of English. In fact, I realized a long time ago that I would never attain the "degree of comfort" in any other language that I have in English. I can aspire to fluency in Spanish, French or Japanese but even if I were to spend the rest of my life in Spain, France or Japan, I would still be most comfortable in English.
Leaving aside the tendency to exaggerate when writing resumés,. the distinction between "bilingualism" and "fluent in two languages" is rarely (never) of interest to employers. Their only concern is fluency in (some) language. For their purposes it is sufficient that one can communicate effectively in some language (for their purposes, being more adept at your native language is irrelevant). For this reason, they are quite happy to dismiss (as "nit-picking") questions of "equality" of comfort. The bottom line is can you handle the language well enough for their purposes.
Ricardo, como muchos en este hilo, estoy completamente de acuerdo contigo. Sin embargo, algo muy importante que todavía no se ha recibido comentario es el sentimiento que uno transmite hablandose. Es decir, si no impartes el sentimiento apropiado, no hablas fluidamente. En mi opinión, tienes que entender como sentirá el oyente de tus palabras en ambos idiomas para poder decir que eres bilingüe.
bilingüe. (definición de el diccionario de la Real Academia Española)
(Del lat. bilinguis).
adj. Que habla dos lenguas.
adj. Escrito en dos idiomas.
bilingual from Merriam Webstern
Main Entry: bi·lin·gual Pronunciation: (?)b?-?li?-gw?l also -gy?-w?l\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin bilinguis, from bi- + lingua tongue — more at tongue Date: 1829
1 : having or expressed in two languages 2 : using or able to use two languages especially with equal fluency 3 : of or relating to bilingual education
Desde mi punto de vista ser bilingüe significa la capacidad de comunicarse en dos lenguas. Hay un término en ingles que define a lo que usted se refiere; biliterate (I couldn’t find the definition in Spanish) o la capacidad de leer y escribir en dos lenguas. Entonces, creo yo, que son bilingües aunque desafortunadamente no “biliterates”
RicardoP, gracias por tu comentario; estoy completamente de acuerdo. Para mí, una persona bilingue puede manejarse sin problema igualmente en dos idiomas. He notado también que hay varias personas que se consideran "bilingues" o "fluentes" en dos idiomas, pero - a mi vista - no lo son. Pero, en fin, no me puedo molestar por eso, verdad?
Yo también estoy de acuerdo con Ricardo, no se si mastering (dependiendo por lo que se entiende como maestría) sea necesaria. Pero al menos poder tener una comunicación fluida en ambas lenguas y sobre todo poder escribir y leer, sin que esto signifique ser un experto en ninguna de ambas lenguas. Lo que yo experimenté al vivir aquí en los EEUU es que muchos hijos de inmigrantes aprendieron un español muy básico y no tuvieron educación formal en español y creen que por hablar algunas frases o palabras ya son bilingues. Y en realidad solo hablan, como ya se mencionó anteriormente, Spanglish. De cualquier manera es mejor Spanglish que nada. Muchas veces esas personas pueden resolver situaciones cotidianas por conocer un poco de español y los ponen un una posicion beneficiosa. Ahora eso no les da el derecho a autoproclamarse bilingue ehhh, no, no, no. Bilingue es aquel que puede resolver o traducir los hilos "killers" de Heidita, eso si es ser bilingue, jajajaja
A few months back, I remember having a similar conversation regarding the use of Spanglish with Lazarus. To me, your perspective speaks a lot to the fact that the use of "Spanglish" by second and third generation descendants of immigrant parents/grandparents qualifies it as a sort of hybrid language - similar to yet, at the same time, different from both Spanish and English. I say this because not only does the grammar usually vary from proper Spanish (as it is somewhat of a hybrid of Spanish and English), there are also many invented and borrowed (or misused depending on your perspective) words that are used by the people who speak "Spanglish."
Where I live, in south Texas, there are probably at least a few million people who this description characterizes. I have spoken to quite a few who have related that when they go to visit their extended family in Mexico, they often are received differently on account of their "strange" use of the language (referring to Spanish). Where I am from, this dialect, hybrid, pidjin, code switching, Spanglish - or whatever you might wish to call it - is referred to as Tex-Mex.
In my opinion, there are enough differences to qualify it as its own little "pocket language," distinct from both Spanish and English, but I know that there are others who would disagree.
As a native Swedish speaker, who has lived for many years in England I would give a very short definition: You're bilingual when the words are just there, without any conscious thought. They are there and they come out in grammatically correct sentences without any real effort on your part whatsoever. Your brain is free to think on what to say, not bogged down by how to say it.
Mi jefe siempre dice que yo soy "multilingüe" y me parece una exageración insoportable. Me manejo bien con el idioma de Madagascar (el “Malagasy”) pero mi capacidad para escribir y leer es pésima. Al contrario puedo leer y escribir en el francés al nivel universitario pero me cuesta hablarlo, aunque entiendo casi todo que escucho. He hablado el inglés toda mi vida y sí soy fluente, es mi lengua nativa, pero también creo que soy fluente en el castellano (así lo llamamos el español en Chile). Cuando enseño el español encuentro los mismos problemas que cuando enseño el inglés. Sé que esta frase me suena mejor, pero a veces no me acuerdo de la regla gramatical. Se me olvido del “why” aunque sé que yo sé que ese es lo correcto.
There's a difference between "academical" knowledge and "natural" knowledge of a language. "Academical" is the one where you write, read, and speak a language on a very good level, but that doesn't mean that people without academic knowledge are not bilingual. If there's somebody who speaks one language only but have difficulties writing in it, does that mean that the same person is not even monolingual? I don't think so.
