• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

International

Spanish or Mandarin

April 21, 2009 Education, International

At the gym yesterday, we were discussing which language would be the best foreign language for a native English speaker to learn first. Specifically, can you make a compelling case for any language other than Spanish or Mandarin?

I couldn’t.

I asked again [today on Twitter](http://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1578387481), and those two were by far the most common answers.

Sure, some qualifiers are in order. By “foreign language,” I’m using shorthand for “language not spoken natively in the home.” If you’re born in Rhode Island, but your parents are Italian, I would hope they’re speaking Italian in the home; the best way to learn a language is from your family. So “foreign language” in this case would mean the third language after English and Italian.

And there are other special circumstances. For example, if you move to Sweden, you should really learn Swedish. If you or a family member are deaf, ASL would be the choice. If you’re from a country with two official languages (e.g. Canada), that second language may be the default.

But beyond what you pick up from your family or neighbors, your first non-English language should be Spanish or Mandarin.

My logic and biases
====

I was born in the U.S. I’m fluent in English. I’m competent in Spanish, less so in French. I can ask directions in German, Portuguese, Japanese and Mandarin, with declining likelihood of being able to understand the answer given. I live at the edge of Koreatown, and while I can read Hangul well enough to decipher transliterated signs, I don’t speak the language at all.

I learned Spanish starting in second grade, part of a bilingual project in my elementary school in Colorado. Obviously, part of the reason I admire the language is that it’s the first one I learned.

There is a misperception that one “needs” to speak Spanish in Southern California. In 17 years here, I can count on one hand the number of times in which my Spanish was actually necessary. But it’s certainly useful.

I think people should speak several languages, not only for the opportunities it presents for international business and travel, but the broader global and literary perspective it provides. You’re going to learn one language first. Pick wisely.

My criteria were, roughly:

1. Number of people who speak it worldwide
2. Usefulness in daily life
3. Usefulness in international business or travel
4. Availability of media in that language
5. Applicability to future language learning
6. Economic power of native speakers

The contenders
===

In the list of [top languages spoken worldwide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_by_number_of_speakers), there are several worth serious consideration.

Hindi (#3) and Arabic (#5) both have vast numbers on their side. With satellite, access to media in both languages has increased worldwide. They are clearly useful languages for business and travel. But I can’t make a compelling case for learning either of these before Spanish or Mandarin. I’m happy to be convinced otherwise; my American bias may be coming through.

Portuguese (#6), Russian (#8), Japanese (#9) are each spoken mostly in their respective economically-powerful countries, and not many other places. They’re great languages to know if you intend to do business in those countries, but it’s hard to argue that they should be general-case choices.

German (#10) shares roots with English, though that doesn’t necessarily make it easy to learn. English is widely taught in Germany, which makes learning German less essential for native English speakers than it might be otherwise.

French (#12) has a tremendous amount of literature and Western Civilization in its favor. While the total number of French speakers isn’t that high, there is fairly wide distribution given the language’s role in international diplomacy. As a romance language, it shares a lot of structure with Spanish. I found it quick to learn given what I already knew.

I’m omitting Cantonese just based on numbers. More people speak all of the languages listed above. Learning Mandarin would put an English speaker on a path towards learning Cantonese later. I’m guessing familiarity with a tonal language like Mandarin could be a help for other Asian languages in general.

I’m also omitting Esperanto and Klingon, even though each has a special place in my heart.

The case for Mandarin or Spanish
===

Mandarin is the most commonly spoken language in the world, ((The exact numbers vary based on what degree you differentiate native languages from secondary languages, and how much you assume dialects are mutually intelligible. Regardless, the big four stay on top.)) and China’s influence will only grow in the years ahead. China is an active investor worldwide, including Africa and South America, yet distribution of Mandarin speakers is relatively sparse outside of Asia. Fluency in English and Mandarin could be a tremendous asset.

Cons for Mandarin: It’s a more challenging language for native English speakers. Learning its rhythms, tones and phonemes — and writing system — would take a lot of work. But getting that practice early in life would be a boon. Currently, there are limited outlets for Mandarin media in the U.S. One’s ability to actively use the language may be limited based on location.

Spanish is the fourth most common language after English and Hindi. It’s tremendously useful in the Western hemisphere — spoken in almost all of Central and South America with the notable exception of Brazil. ((A competent Spanish speaker will find Portuguese easy to navigate, however.)) In the U.S., one finds an abundance of both native speakers and Spanish-language media outlets. You can use Spanish on a daily basis without ever leaving the country.

While it has a daunting number of conjugations, Spanish is grammatically straightforward and remarkably consistent with pronunciation and sound rules, which makes it well-suited for school-based study. With its Latin roots, it has tremendous vocabulary overlap with English and most European languages. Learning Spanish early may increase overall English vocabulary as well. ((Like French, Spanish has many recognizable cognates with English. Dormir :: dormitory, blanco :: blanch. This doesn’t mean the words came from Spanish, but rather than the words reveal common roots, which is so very helpful come SAT time.))

Cons for Spanish: While the number of Spanish speakers will probably continue to grow, there is no reason to anticipate its reach expanding beyond its current borders. It’s certainly more useful in the U.S. than in the U.K. or Australia. Fluency in Spanish is so common in the U.S. that it’s not a particularly unique or marketable asset.

Should we bother teaching other languages?
====

In high school, yes. In college, absolutely. You need to reward motivated students who want to learn languages. But I’d argue that in grade school and junior high, we would serve students better by offering them either Spanish or Mandarin. That’s it.

We clearly have the raw capital (i.e. native speakers) to teach Spanish. I’m not sure we have the capacity for Mandarin.

So have at it. Can you make a compelling case for something other than Spanish or Mandarin as a first foreign language for a native English speaker?

Simple English Wikipedia

April 20, 2009 Africa, International

For another article I’m working on, I came across the [Simple English Wikipedia](http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), a parallel set of articles written in a subset of English designed for non-native speakers, students, children and others who may have trouble with standard English:

> __Simple English__ is similar to English, but it only uses basic words.

> We suggest that articles should use only the 1000 most common and basic words in English. They should also use only simple grammar, and shorter sentences. Writers can also use a special system, for example Basic English. Of course, people can write original articles; these could be put in both this and the main Wikipedia (with a normal level of English). Usually, only about 2,000 words are enough to write a normal article.

For example, here is the first paragraph from the botany article, first in the [regular English wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany)…

> Botany, plant science(n), phytology, or plant biology is a branch of biology and is the scientific study of plant life and development. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study plants, algae, and fungi including: structure, growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, diseases, chemical properties, and evolutionary relationships between the different groups. Botany began with tribal efforts to identify edible, medicinal and poisonous plants, making botany one of the oldest sciences. From this ancient interest in plants, the scope of botany has increased to include the study of over 550,000 species of living organisms.

…and in [Simple English](http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany):

> Botany is a science. It is a branch of biology, and is also called plant biology. It is sometimes called phytology. Botany is the study of plants. Scientists who study botany are called botanists. They want to learn about how plants work.

That feels like a book report I wrote in third grade after a deep research session with the World Book Encyclopedia. But that’s a good thing. For many users, that simple definition of botany is all they need. It answers their question, and provides a basis for further learning.

More importantly, a user with limited English could write that article and share it with the world, while inviting the same kind of editing and feedback that native-language articles get. A teenager in Botswana could document the rules for a common game largely unknown outside the community. That’s remarkably helpful.

I can anticipate cries of implicit English imperialism; who says that the world’s knowledge is better kept in English? Fair enough. But I’d rather the article exist in Simple English than not exist. I’d also suggest that Simple English probably machine-translates into other languages more easily than other alternatives.

As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that the [simple](http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenwriter) article for “screenwriter” is currently better than the [full](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenwriter) one.

Are glossaries a good idea?

April 15, 2009 Africa, Formatting, International, QandA

questionmarkIf a screenplay has a good amount of foreign words sprinkled throughout, is it OK to attach a glossary of a few pages? Or is that an amateurish way to handle it? These foreign words would appear both in action/description and in dialogue (NOT to be subtitled.)

I just think that it would make for a smoother read to NOT have explanations of each word as it comes up in the screenplay.

— Alejandro
Caracas/Los Angeles

My hunch is that you won’t need it. When you need to use the foreign term in action, put the translation in parentheses right after the word. When you’re using a bit of the language without subtitles, it’s still a good idea to provide a parenthetical to help the reader:

Merry stirs a pot of kholowa (sweet potato leaves), while the children play tag. She fakes a smile as her neighbor NYANDO walks up. He’s fifty and blind in one eye.

MERRY

(how are you?)

Muli bwanji, Nyando?

Have some English-speakers read your script, and if they’re truly perplexed, a glossary might be in order. If there are five really crucial terms, you could put it at the start of the script, right after the title page. If there are more, a glossary at the end might be better. In any case, keep it to less than a page.

Let the right subtitles in

March 27, 2009 International, Video

I found [this post](http://iconsoffright.com/news/2009/03/let_the_wrong_subtitles_in_to.html) about the uproar over the DVD/BR subtitles for Let The Right One In very interesting. Seemingly arbitrary changes really can impact the scene, and you wouldn’t know the difference unless you’d seen (that is, read) the theatrical version.

Warning: Some spoilers if you haven’t seen the movie. (Which you should. It’s terrific.)

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.