Re: PM granted interview to CNN on Rohingya issue.

"maxwell" <mmmaxwell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gogp29$aq0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"PG" wrote ...
"maxwell" a écrit ...
"PG" wrote ...
<~>
And Anglos abroad are by far the biggest culprits in terms of
unwillingness to attempt to speak the language of the country they are
visiting, thereby showing a minimum of respect. Especially Yanks.

You have some evidence of "especially Yanks" ?
I wonder why your 'observations' diverge SO widely from:

Um, you did spot that the issue was solely the willingness to talk the
language of the country being visited if known, and not how 'obnoxious' a
tourist is?

Snip reply for brevity, because of misunderstanding - I was referring to the
thread not the survey

It is odd that Indian and Chinese hoteliers weren't included in the
survey.

. . nor were Russian hoteliers, but unless travelers are particularly
different in their behaviours according to where found, and/or hoteliers
have particular biases, why is an exhaustively-inclusive sampling needed?
Japanese when abroad are universally reported to be quite polite, and
Chinese to be rather ruder travelers.
I've found this consistent with those I've encountered in parts of the
U.S., three provinces of Canada, as well as when in Thailand and in
France, while local Chinese in Hong Kong and New Territories seemed far
less obnoxious than those on holiday in Bangkok, and the French I met
while working for some months in Paris were significantly less rude than
their countrymen on holiday in Chiang Mai.

Hmm a somewhat different experience to mine (throughout Europe/Russia/SE
Asia/China/N. Africa). The French I've met in SE Asia were much better
behaved than the British, for example, almost without exception.

And yes, I think that local hoteliers are more likely to be supportive of
their fellow countrymen, to a greater or lesser degree (and vice versa...
ask around a Pakistani hotel how they rate Indian visitors, for example).
Who was asked anyway... reception? Porters? Management? Restaurant staff?
What grade hotels were included? Were allowances made for the discrepancy in
numbers of visitors from the different countries? If not, rare visitors from
certain countries would likely get a disproportionate and unrepresentative
response from the interviewees.

Clearly that would affect the results.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Even were some presumption of bias made for hotel
managerial staff (whether of national chauvinism, or conversely, greater
expectations for one's countrymen), how might that carry over to to desk
clerks, waiters, concierges, or whoever best to report on actual client
encounters, particularly as such employees are often not natives of
whatever nation's lodging establishments?

"Often"? My experience is the opposite, ie that the majority of employees
are locals - especially in a country like Thailand where they are virtually
all Thais on the front desk.

Plus it's a pretty stupid study that makes comparisons between and
deductions about tourists' ability to speak the language of the country
being visited seeing as in 99.9 per cent of all cases outside Anglophone
destinations tourists are incapable of saying anything other than 'Hi' in
the local lingo (if that).

I wonder how you fairly claim that near-absolute figure?

For effect; in *English* English at least, equating to 'virtually all'.

I know that most of my friends (and also myself) have made efforts to
acquire at least some basic phrases prior to traveling to places where
English fluency is not very common.

A very small minority of travellers 1) make the effort to learn before
departure, 2) remember what they have learnt, 3) can pronounce it in an
intelligible manner and 4) have the nerve to put it into practice once they
discover that most people in tourist destinations speak some English anyway.

While I have some very basic French and Spanish speaking fluency, and a
fair reading comprehension of the preceding two
(and also a wee bit of German), this is hardly an exceptional talent
amongst 'educated' English speakers, who are also disproportionately
weighted among those folks having the means and/or inclination to travel
abroad?

My experience differs. I'm a linguist (translator and interpreter) by
training. I tend to notice these things.

Plus it's a strange kind of survey that draws conclusions by questioning
hotels when they see relatively few visitors from the great majority of
countries around the world, compared to Yanks, Japs, Brits etc. Would be
interesting to see the actual survey, how the questions were phrased, and
the national split of the interviewees.

Yup, French tourists sure can be obnoxious. The Yanks abroad have a
different kind of arrogance, imho.

Certainly some do!

<q> American tourists fared well in some surprising ways. Despite being
notoriously language-limited, for example, they top the list of tourists
credited with trying to speak local languages the most, with the French,
Chinese, Japanese, Italians and Russians coming in last in the
local-language rankings. </q>
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1820358,00.html

You were speaking from personal experience?

.. surely no limitations of anecdotal observation or chauvinistic bias
underlay your trouncing upon Yanks, right? ;~)

Certainly there's a element of personal experience, and it doesn't call
solely on knowledge of the tourist type who stays in hotels either. There
are other ways of travelling, including self-catering, small b&b type
establishments etc, and you get a different kind of animal to the
tourists whose needs are pandered to in relatively upmarket hotels.

True, there are differences, though to what extent these travelers diverge
from 'mainstream' is unknown.

So I seriously doubt that the survey is very useful in respect to the
above... including indicating an ability to speak a foreign language in
the first place, which is clearly key... and I'll explain further.

In the great majority of countries around the world French is not spoken.
I'm not referring to hotels, I'm talking about in restaurants of all
standards, shops, asking directions in the street, etc. English, on the
other hand, is. English currently is the lingua franca. It is pointless
to speak French to someone when there is roughly zero chance of being
understood. Unsurprisingly, therefore, they rarely do it. The French
usually use English, to the best of their ability.

The Frogs all, without exception, learn English at school right at least
through to baccalaureat level. It is the teaching language at many
business schools. A large majority of French youngsters are perfectly
happy and able to speak English to a reasonable standard these days.
Older generations, that's another issue, but they are increasingly being
replaced by younger holidaymakers with a different and less chauvinistic
outlook.

I'd like to think that were so, while a number of young-ish French I've
witnessed in Thailand hardly served to confirm your expectations; it
wasn't that they did not speak English reasonably well enough, but rather,
that an obvious 'hauteur' characterized their regard of khon Thai, to the
point of utter obnoxiousness in a few instances (in Chiang Mai, and once
on Koh Chang).

A lack of respect for the local culture stems from the unfortunate and
entirely misplaced superiority complex of the average Westerner, in my
experience, especially when visiting developing nations/third world
countries. I certainly don't find the French especially exceptional in this
respect, they are equally disrespectful when compared to other Europeans in
my experience, and slightly less so than the average Anglo Saxon.

I was at a conference in Brussels on Friday. Run by a US manufacturer,
roughly 150 representatives of its suppliers were present from every
European country and some places in Asia. English was spoken fluently by
one and all, including the French.

What foreign languages are compulsory for the Yanks to learn through to
age 17/18 and beyond?

This varies widely, and rather than compulsory are most often elective
choices. Unsurprisingly, Spanish dominates as a second language.
See:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_053.asp

. .for up to 18, and note that at the university level, most programs
require at least two semesters of a 2nd language as part of baccalaureate
requirements.

<q>New research out today reveals that despite travelling more than
ever - foreign language skills have not improved amongst Brits, with
more than 25 million (54 per cent) unable to recognise even the most
basic of phrases in the language of their destination.

It's hardly surprising that 40 per cent of the population of the UK
doesn't understand Greek, Mandarin, Russian, Khmer, is it? I'm amazed it
isn't 90% +. (There's roughly 61 million Brits, so the writer needs to
put a new battery in his calculator).

That's a bit of a straw man you're reaching with, having substituted
"doesn't understand" for "recognize even the most basic of phrases"

On the contrary, I am simply pointing out a nonsensical part of the survey
by suggesting that not only do they not recognise key phrases, they don't
understand one single word in the vast majority of cases. And what a daft
statement in the first place, "in the language of their destination".
Clearly if you're heading for Outer Mongolia that figure with be virtually
100% of Brits (or anyone else).

LateRooms.com, one of the UK's leading accommodation websites, conducted
the research, which showed that more than 81 per cent of monolingual
British travellers refuse to take a phrase book or dictionary with them
when travelling abroad, with a complacent third (33 per cent) admitting
that they tend to rely on bi-lingual locals to speak English.

''Refuse''? What, like "Take this phrase book with you or we won't give
you a ticket". "I don't care, I refuse, won't go then, so there".... ?
Who wrote this crap?

umm, not taking a phrase book by intention would seem to be refusal

"Refuse" in this context implies a deliberate rejection, and I sincerely
doubt most holidaymakers from the UK give it much thought seeing as wherever
most are heading there are likely to be English-speaking locals these days.

More fool the ones going to less popular destinations though, if they end up
in some of the remoter parts of the world that I have visited, where no one
speaks a word of English.

A lot more than 33% will rely on using English abroad, believe me. Nearer
99%, depending on the destination.

What, again with the near-total figure? (by fiat, apparently), while if
such claim is true, it supports 'refusal of phrasebook carriage'
Some internal consistency of argument, please? ;~)

Total consistency. Virtually all tourists rely on using English abroad, and
these days that's not only those who originate from English-speaking
countries. A few are able to garble a "Check please", or "Two beers please"
in an approximately comprehensible manner, but this doesn't change my view
on the subject.

And if all else fails and there's no English speakers in the vicinity,
many still refuse to use the native tongue with almost a fifth (19 per
cent) resorting to simply talking louder and slower in the hope that
this may get their message across. 39 per cent embarrassingly create an
ad-hoc sign language to try and communicate with the locals and
approximately 5 million (10 per cent) confess that they simply speak
English in a foreign accent as they think this may help aid
understanding in some way. </q>
http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_nshw.php?mwi=4676

Absolutely, the Brits are almost as hopeless linguists as the Yanks,
generally speaking. As a professionally qualified member of the Institute
of Linguists in London, I just happen to be the exception that proves the
rule :-)

As for talking loudly in English to make yourself understood, the Yanks
are the masters, not knowing the meaning of embarrassment - the Brits are
far more self-effacing!

Hey, don't neglect the Aussies!
(though the ones who 'go native' I've met have been rather fluent in their
new tongue !)

Yes, it's important not to confuse expats and tourists with respect to these
issues. There are some parallels, but expats and tourists tend to be
different animals in the first place.

pg


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Leodhasach & Hearasch - Gaelic help please
    ... course our own traditional language is even more neglected than Gaelic is. ... who speak English soon get the gist of it. ... is someone who truly appreciates Scottish culture in that you won't find ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: PM granted interview to CNN on Rohingya issue.
    ... Um, you did spot that the issue was solely the willingness to talk the language of the country being visited if known, and not how 'obnoxious' a tourist is? ... deductions about tourists' ability to speak the language of the country being visited seeing as in 99.9 per cent of all cases outside Anglophone destinations tourists are incapable of saying anything other than 'Hi' in the local lingo. ... departure, 2) remember what they have learnt, 3) can pronounce it in an intelligible manner and 4) have the nerve to put it into practice once they discover that most people in tourist destinations speak some English anyway. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: (OT:) Im voting for Hillary...
    ... Retire to COLD country? ... English, yes. ... to deal with to have to deal with so many Indians that speak English ... their native language. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • LNH: LNH Comics Presents #55: Infinite Leadership Crisis Episode 20
    ... But all she can do is speak ... Linguist Lass smiled. ... Now, New Look Lass, what language would you ... thinking in English and it comes out in any language I ...
    (rec.arts.comics.creative)
  • Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)
    ... >> between pidgin and creole must be based on grammar. ... > grammar based on a language from group A and they would place the ... > being based on the grammar of the languagethey already speak, ... > how the different varieties of English come about: ...
    (sci.lang)