Re: PM granted interview to CNN on Rohingya issue.

"pg" wrote ...
"maxwell" wrote ...
"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.

It's possible that the rude frogs I've come across were anomalies; in fairness I should mention that some young French fellows my wife and I encountered in Northern Thailand were of another sort of 'anomaly': partnered with Thai of a similar age, fluent in Thai, and utterly polite. But then, these were not truly tourists.

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).

Methinks one could obtain similar pans of Indians from Pakis in Pittsburgh, LOL ! ;~)

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.

That's a very fair point !

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.

I was thinking of Continental and particularly of larger North American hotels, while I've yet to see other than Thai staffing Thai hotels, at least at the front desks and the restaurant workers.

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'.

Recognized as but rhetoric, okay.

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.

3) has much truth to it, in my experience (which includes my own fractured efforts with Thai tonalities ;~) . . .while 4) seems to vary relative to natives' reception accorded the efforts, in addition to your note of the availability of English speakers.
Regarding 1) and 2) : while I'd also like to know the methodology of the tourist surveys, I'd as much like to know that more than anecdotal experience underlies these 'very few try to acquire and then put to use' claims.

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.

That could give you an observational advantage, but still constrained by samplings.
You rightly call attention to the need to know survey methodology, but generalizing your own experience (or my own) to the many is fraught with inherent bias, quite apart from any personal *a priori* presumptions either of us may or may not bear.

<snip>
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.

Here again my experience diverges from yours, and the more so with regards to younger travelers I've encountered.

<snip>
<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).

This seems an argument of convenience. A destination scant few of the masses would ever visit might well have its own inherent bias of visitors, i.e., 'tourists' could well be weighted toward those with professional interests, whether business, cultural, or political, and thus *more* likely to have acquired at least some bare conversational skills prior to arrival.

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.

Again, true in much of Europe, and *some* parts of Asia.
Even within a nation, vast regional differences in English fluency are found; certainly I've seen this in Thailand !

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.

. . and what fraction of the masses *do* set out to venture about there without a guide?

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.

Ah well, as many of the retiree clients of our son-in-law's employer have not the English fluency of modern Germans, 'tis good business for the company's German-fluent khon Thai, while my good wife's youngest daughter enjoys a much better salary in Bangkok for her fluency in Japanese than if her primary second language was English.

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.

No argument there.

pg

Cheers,
-maxwell

.

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.
    ... unwillingness to attempt to speak the language of the country they are ... deductions about tourists' ability to speak the language of the country ... in *English* English at least, ...
    (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)