Insularity and complacency are leading youngsters to reject learning foreign tongues, raisins problems for the future, writes John o'Leary

Britain’s presidency of the European Union will begin with another demonstration of national insularity as universities prepare for a further slump in applications for degrees in modern languages.

While ministers and civil servants brush up their French, a long-term fall in interest is creating a spiral of decline in language learning. Key languages for exporters, such as German and Spanish, are no longer available in many schools.

According to research commissioned by the BBC, a third of Britons are embarrassed by their inability to speak foreign languages and 28 per cent are interested in learning one. But the emergence of English as a world language has bred complacency among many young people.

Figures to be published later this month are expected to show languages hearing the brunt of a 6 per cent fall in applications to higher education. The take-up for language A levels has dropped sharply in the past five years in spite of a general increase in student numbers and a larger pool of pupils taking French in their early teens.

The introduction of tuition fees is expected to hit four-year language courses particularly hard.

Out of almost 300,000 new undergraduates in 19 % – the last year for which statistics are complete – only 249 started degree courses in Spanish and 340 in German. Even French, attracted only 1,030 new entrants. Fears are growing that the numbers taking language degrees may not be sufficient to replenish the already inadequate supply of teachers in those subjects.

Only half the 14-year-olds taking national curriculum tests in modern languages had readied the expected standard.

Research by academics at Glasgow University into a steep decline in French suggested that teenagers found the subject hard and felt under peer pressure to abandon the language.

Professor Alan Smithers, the head of Brunei University's Centre for Education and Employment Research, said:

"There is a vicious circle in which consistent decline means there isn't a big enough pool from which to recruit teachers and the quality of teaching suffers as a result. Teenagers are more excited by history and other subjects.

There is a particular problem arising from the position of English as the dominant world language. Teenagers do not have the same motivation as those in other countries to learn a foreign language and they do not know which one to learn."

There are now at least 1.5 billion English-speakers around the world. In Europe more than 40 per cent speak the language. Most continental children learn English at primary school and continue well into their teens, often adding a second foreign language.

British students' growing insularity is underlined by a drop in the numbers taking part of their degrees on the Continent. In 1995-96 nearly 22,000 continental students visited Britain on European Union programmes – the most popular destination – while fewer than 12,000 British students returned the compliment. Figures published this month suggest a decline of more than 900 Britons since then.

BRITISH STUDENTS BUILD NEW LANGUAGE BARRIER GUIDE

WORD STUDY

1. Match the following formal words with their less formal (neutral or colloquial) equivalents:

insularity complacency replenish commission (v) recruit (v)

order enroll detachement refill self-satisfaction

2. Join the two parts of the collocations. Supply the necessary form words (articles, prepositions, etc,):

breed bear reach take return

test complacency compliment brunt degree standards

3. Pick out from the text the words and expressions that describe the unsatisfactory state of affairs in language learning in Great Britain.

COMPREHENSION

4. Explain the following:

• A-levels

• presidency of the European Union

• tuition fees

• peer pressure

• vicious circle

• pool (of pupils)

5. Show the difference between:

Pupil, student, entrant, undergraduate.

6. Answer the questions:

1. People of what professions need foreign languages more than others?

2. What foreign languages are popular in Great Britain?

3. How many Britons can speak foreign languages?

4. How can you account for English peopled lack of interest in foreign languages?

5. Why is it difficult to keep up the quality of language learning in Britain?

FOLLOW-UP

7. Compare the situation with foreign language in Britain and Belarus.

8. Work out several arguments that you think might persuade British teenagers to take up foreign languages.

LET’S RECAST THE SPELL

Patricia Hughes argues that we should do ourselves a favour, go thru the English Language and simplify the spellings.

In 1800, before the peak of imperial administration, Anne Lister of Yorkshire used words such as "honor" and "favorite". Yet dictionaries always list “honour” and “favourite”. While at school in the 1950s I was taught that the former spellings were American and should therefore be avoided.

The truth is that American English might just have made some improvements, though we are loath to admit it. The British are subject to a myth that English never changes and never should change, though all languages do.

Where did we get this myth of our unchanging language? It came from the same stable as the notion of the Empire on which the Sun Never Sets. When the British Empire began to send missionaries around the world it became necessary to establish what belonged to the culture and what did not. Since almost all communication was by letter, spellings had to be formalised.

To invoke respect the language had to be old and traditional. This meant a conscious invocation from Latin, ancient Greek and Norman French. Thus "honor" became "honour" in line with French "honneur". Shortened forms of words in common use such as 'tho', 'thru', 'thoro' (though, through, thorough) were deliberately lengthened and made more complicated to prove their archaic heritage.

Grammar was also affected by the adoption of Latin rules superimposed on the Germanic framework of English. Verbs dependent on prepositions (to put off, to put by, to put up with) were judged to be vernacular or dialect. Whenever they were used, intricate rules based on Latin were followed to express disapproval, leading to oddities such as "Up with that I can no longer put!"

I suggest that we continue to adapt our language to our present use, and for the sake of ease of spelling. In any case, if we dont it will go the way of Latin and become obsolete except in administrative use. We should divest English English of any over-complex spelling rules that relate to Norman, Latin or ancient Greek:

• spell -our at the end of words with -or, (honor, favor);

• drop -gue and -que at the end of words, (catalog, analog);

• change -ous to -us (anomalus. deciduus, humorus);

• change -le at the end of words to -el (russel. trifel, cycel);

• change -ain at the end of words to -an (mountan, certan);

• change -ph to – f (fenomenon, telefone. frase);

In addition, simplification of the hardest spellings in the language is long overdue: though/tho; through/thru; thorough/thoro; thought/thort: their, there/ther.

We should do this, first, by allowing a period of change; second, adjusting spellchecks of computers to the new spellings so people get used to seeing them in print; and third, printing dictionaries with old and new spellings. This would ensure that oldies like me can still write in their own way, but also would allow youngsters to loam logical spellings.

Patricia Hughes teaches modern languages

in a comprehensive school

Food for thort

PATRICIA Hughos (July 4) argues that we should re-spell words to simplify the language. What she actually advocates is to match pronunciation closely, but without considering the wide variation in pronunciation!

Such words as "thought" becoming "thort" compound the problem of illogical spelling for some folk instead of simplifying it. In Scotland, the "r" in "thort" would be pronounced, and the words "oar", "or" and "awe" sound completely different, whereas in London they – are identical. Changing "mountain" to "mountan" is a poor approximation ("in" would be better), but in any case some people prefer words ending in "-ain" to rhyme with "twain" (many poems spring to mind).

Such changes also might detract from the beauty of the language in print. Language changes in use anyway: fones, nites, catalogs and disks abound. Computers, of course are the main culprits.

— D S Taylor. Uttoxeter, Staffs.

I DO NOT agree with Patricia Hughes' argument (July 4) about the advantages of making speling ecer. The more varid it is the mor interesting it is and also a certan Ics of sutelt results from having everithing mayd to logical.

Nevertheless, I do agree that pedantic pedagogy is something "up with witch we should not put".

— John Thirkil, Norwich.

DT Elmore

PATRICIA Hughes argues that we should adopt American spelling of English (Guardian Education, July 4).

I should like to present an opposing argument. I am certainly not "subject to the myth that English never changes and never should". A vast number of new words, especially those with a scientific or medical origin, have been added to die language in my lifetime. During my career as biochemist/organic chemist, I have been instrumental in adding many new words; every new compound synthesised in my laboratory has required the Invention of a new name.

Ms Hughes recommends dropping -gue and -que at the end of words. This may not be difficult with words that contain a short vowel before -gue and -que, but would the new cabinet minister like to be referred to as Mr William Hag? Would magistrates and judges refer to hardened criminals as rogs? And would Bach's ghost haunt as if we amuse ourselves playing his 48 preludes and fugs?

Next, I can see no advantage in reversing -le at the end of words such as cycle. A "c" before "e" is usually soft, as in "celery". Again, the proposal to change -ain at the end of words to -an would be objectionable. Would Patricia Hughes recommend students to read "Plan Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers? Finally, the Royal Society of Chemistry has already replaced "sulphur" with "sulfur". I do not like this change because it suggests that we ought to change "phosphorus" to "fosforus". Now the chemical symbol for phosphorus is P. It could not be changed to F because that is the symbol for fluorine. Such a radical change would cause chaos in chemical literature.

Before we adopt too much of American English, we should remember that the decision by the Americans to differentiate their version of English from ours goes back to the period just after the American War of Independence. Such people as Noah Wehster of dictionary fame did everything possible to bring about such changes. These were not based on logical or grammatical grounds, but were the result of understandable political disenchantment with their former political masters. While I accept the need for continuing development of the English English language, dramatic and unnecessary changes are to be opposed.