Tips for beginners?

[mlomker]

skunkpuppy, my instinct would be that people that speak tonal languages would have better luck. I think there's a reason why Asian people love karoake--their tonal languages give them better control of the voices...and they are, therefore, better singers than English speakers. It's all that I can do to keep my Vietnamese partner from singing when I'm trying to watch TV.

[Aristotle]

Hi, I'm learning using the Pimsleur approach, but this thread is sparking a question within me:

Just how important is perfect pronunciation?

Surely, the most important thing is to be able to converse and effectively communicate.

I've never been put off by someone speaking English to me with an accent (haha even American!!).

Okay, spelling and writing might be important if you're looking for a job or working for a business - but I, for one, am not to worried about having an accent.

Well, first of all, I think good pronounciation would help as much to get a job as good spelling and grammar (assuming you get to the interview). It might not be fair, but I'm quite confident that statistics would show that people with good pronounciation have an easier time finding jobs. Just ask your local taxi drivers. In the US and many European countries, it's not uncommon to find immigrants who are fully qualified engineers, doctors and the like, driving cabs, simply because they can't get the job they're educated for.

I'm not looking for a job in China, and my reasons for good pronounciation is twofold. First of all, I simply like impressing people. If I speak better Mandarin than most foreigners, Chinese people will be impressed, and that's a good feeling. If you're gonna learn a language, might as well learn it well. The second reason is the risks of misinterpretation. Chinese relies on few syllables to carry the message across. Mispronounce one syllable in an English three-syllable word, and people will understand you anyway. Mispronounce one syllable in a Chinese two- or even one- syllable word, and people might think you're saying something else (often with embarrassing results).

Aristotle -

Recognising that your comment about Americans all having bad accents is tongue-in-cheek (and I'm not American), and also recognising this is slightly off-topic, but...

Which first-languages are best suited to speaking Mandarin (only in reference to pronunciation, not grammar, vocabulary, etc)? Those from the Sino-tibetan language family? Chinese dialect speakers (e.g. Cantonese)? Tonal languages (e.g. Thai, Vietnamese)? But from my experience, they do have a lot of trouble speaking Mandarian too.

And more generally, is there a language which is *generally* best suited to being flexible in learning other languages (may not be Chinese).

I can't really say when it comes to Mandarin specifically, but I find Swedish to be a very good language for learning others. I don't think it has as many sounds as English, but probably more than Japanese, and we do have some sounds found in just about no other language in the world. But more importantly, we use the Latin alphabet a lot like the Romans did. English has a quite peculiar way of pronouncing the letters, and when you see familiar letters making up unfamiliar words, that means it's easy to unconciously pronounce them according to your own rules. Since Swedish uses quite original Latin sounds (for some very odd reason, since they're pretty far apart ,linguistically), it's a good base for approximating other sounds. We're "in the middle of the scale", so to speak, so we have less distance to go to the extremes. Does this make any sense?

This is obviously mostly helpful in learning European languages, but I find that pinyin translitteration is quite intuitive for Swedes as well (whereas Wade-Giles is absolutely impossible).

Anyway, my point is, that the best language for learning other languages would be the "average" of all the world's languages. Think in terms of English accents, for a while. The "standard" English, used by television hosts and news anchors, is pretty much the average of all the English dialects. Who would you think would have an easier time learning to speak with an Irish accent, one brought up with "standard" English, or one brought up with, say, a thick Aussie accent? But the Australian would probably still have easier to do it than someone speaking Indian English, since australian English is closer to the "average". Of course, it's probably even easier if you're a Scot, but then you'd instead have problems with other dialects further apart, like said Indian English. The standard dialect means you don't have that far to go in either direction.

That's my theory, anyway. The number of sounds could very well also have an impact, maybe even a greater one. But it's always easier if the languages are similar, so the "most similar" language ought to be the best allround, no? Sorry for the insane amounts of text, but I wasn't sure I got the message across.

[Lugubert]

I can't really say when it comes to Mandarin specifically, but I find Swedish to be a very good language for learning others.

Especially, half a century go, when I was young, and we learned grammar, and to get your university entry exam, you would have studied at least three foreign languages.

I don't think it has as many sounds as English, but probably more than Japanese

Don't give up that easily! Standard Swedish has 9 long and 9 short vowel phonemes. To describe those sounds, 17 IPA signs are needed. Standard English: 5 - 7 - 11.

Consonants is a more even game. Our 18 vs. English 22. But to describe local varietes of which most Swedes are aware, there are at least 8 more.

and we do have some sounds found in just about no other languaege in the world.

Some are very rare. AFAIK, retroflexes are only found in India, China, Norway and Sweden.

That's a great help when we learn Chinese! In some dialects, we even have exactly the "i" sound of 四.

And then there are two certainly unique sounds. One is a simultaneous voiceless postalveolar and velar fricative.Scroll to Hooktop Heng in the list box here to see the IPA sign. And the very labial, over-rounded way we normally pronounce our long "u" hasn't even been given an IPA sign. We use a sign from the Swedish Dialect Alphabet (the same system that Bernhard Karlgren used for recording Chinese dialects). It looks like an upside down "m", with the middle leg slightly shortened. For our perhaps unique short "u", a rather central vowel, close to the mid central murmur vowel "schwa" (use the linked inputter, if you aren't familiar with the schwa) the non-IPA sign is a lowercase "o" with a horizontal bar.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that Swedish being a tonal language helps very much in learning Chinese. Anyway, we've just got two tones, but we (and Norwegians) should understand the principle more easily than many others.

The other way round, there must be extremewly few non-Swedish born persons who can pronounce "7" in Swedish. "Sju" typically starts with the hooktop heng and ends in a long u...

[Aristotle]

And the very labial, over-rounded way we normally pronounce our long "u" hasn't even been given an IPA sign

Yup, that's the one I was talking about. It's so much fun to hear foreigners try to pronounce it.

In some dialects, we even have exactly the "i" sound of 四

I'm guessing you're referring to the Lidingö "i"? I thought about that, too. As the particular dialect is known to just about all Swedes (and everyone has his/her own imitation of the posh Lidingö people, in my experience), it helps a lot to get an otherwise quite strange sound.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that Swedish being a tonal language helps very much in learning Chinese.

During my time on this forum, I've heard all sorts of languages being referred to as tonal, and in every case but Chinese, it's hotly debated. Is there a linguistical definition tied to the word "tonal"? My instinctive definition would be that it requires the same "word", pronouced with different tones, to have different meaning, and I just can't see that in Swedish. But I'm not a linguist (just a die-hard Fredrik Lindström fan) and you certainly seem to be. So I'll ask you: is there such a definition? In what way is Swedish tonal, except in the way that we use tones to express meaning? I mean, so does English: You're a carprenter. You're a carprenter?

To all others. Sorry if we're straying off topic. Feel free to interrupt.

[bomaci]

During my time on this forum, I've heard all sorts of languages being referred to as tonal, and in every case but Chinese, it's hotly debated. Is there a linguistical definition tied to the word "tonal"? My instinctive definition would be that it requires the same "word", pronouced with different tones, to have different meaning, and I just can't see that in Swedish. But I'm not a linguist (just a die-hard Fredrik Lindström fan) and you certainly seem to be. So I'll ask you: is there such a definition? In what way is Swedish tonal, except in the way that we use tones to express meaning? I mean, so does English: You're a carprenter. You're a carprenter?

I'm not a linguist either but I have read some things about the tonality of Swedish. Many people seem to classify Swedish as "pitch-accent" rather than tonal. I'm not quite sure of the distincion myself but Swedish does have some words which are distinguished only by pitch patterns. The most common example is anden which means either "the spirit" or "the duck" just depending on the pitch contour. I don't think a native speaker of Swedish is generally even aware of this (I certainly wasn't before). Here are some other examples of words which have two meanings only distinguished by pitch:

tomten, tanken, udden, stegen,

However tonality in Swedish is rather limited so I don't think it is of that much help when learning Mandarin.

[HashiriKata]

English has something like 3,000 sounds; versus Japanese which I think has less than 200 sounds

skunkpuppy, is this a fact? where did you get it? I'd love know more about it!

Anyway, my point is, that the best language for learning other languages would be the "average" of all the world's languages. Think in terms of English accents, for a while. The "standard" English, used by television hosts and news anchors, is pretty much the average of all the English dialects. Who would you think would have an easier time learning to speak with an Irish accent, one brought up with "standard" English, or one brought up with, say, a thick Aussie accent? But the Australian would probably still have easier to do it than someone speaking Indian English, since australian English is closer to the "average". Of course, it's probably even easier if you're a Scot, but then you'd instead have problems with other dialects further apart, like said Indian English. The standard dialect means you don't have that far to go in either direction.

That's my theory, anyway.

Aristotle, I'm afraid you need to scrape this theory away before someone else sees it . Terms such as "average" and "standard" are simply social notions, and doesn't have any physiological bases to give anyone any advantages in learning another language.

Of course, if you're an Indian English speaker but have to use materials/ standards intended for American English speakers to learn Chinese (as often is the case), then you would have some problems of adjusting to the terms of reference, just as an American English speaker would, if he uses materials/ standards intended for Indian English speakers.

[geraldc]

but I find that pinyin translitteration is quite intuitive for Swedes as well (whereas Wade-Giles is absolutely impossible).

As pinyin was developed by the Russians, I guess it gives people from that area an advantage when they first start with pinyin (btw how close are Russian and Swedish sounds?), in the same way that people whose first language is English have fewer problems with Wades Giles. However when foreigners learn with bopomofo, does any country have an advantage?

[Lugubert]

I'm guessing you're referring to the Lidingö "i"? I thought about that, too. As the particular dialect is known to just about all Swedes (and everyone has his/her own imitation of the posh Lidingö people, in my experience), it helps a lot to get an otherwise quite strange sound.

Most Swedes able to name it call it the Viby "i". Lidingö "i" is he name in the Stockholm area. Viby in county Närke is rather rural.

I hypothesize that the more native sounds a language has (e.g. English has something like 3,000 sounds; versus Japanese which I think has less than 200 sounds)

I think you are confusing "sounds" and "possible syllables".

"Pitch accent" wasn't invented when I studied linguistics and phonetics. After some searching, I get the impression that the difference is that pitch accent involves more than one syllable (Swedish) and tonal accent only one syllable (Chinese). That should make the Swedish system more complicated... Anyway it's tones in both cases, as is very obvious from a spectrogram.

btw how close are Russian and Swedish sounds?

The consonants differ a lot, but the vowels are more manageable.

[bomaci]

"Pitch accent" wasn't invented when I studied linguistics and phonetics. After some searching, I get the impression that the difference is that pitch accent involves more than one syllable (Swedish) and tonal accent only one syllable (Chinese). That should make the Swedish system more complicated... Anyway it's tones in both cases, as is very obvious from a spectrogram.

I don't think the Swedish system is necessarily more complicated. As far as I know there are only two possible pitch accents and every two syllable word has one of these two pitch accents. If you use pinyin tones to describe them they sound like a 1-4 combination and 4-4 combination respectively. For example: an1den4 = the duck, an4den4 = the spirit.

Now in chinese a two syllable word can have 15 different possible pronounciations. There a 4 possible tones for the first syllable and 4 for the second. This makes for 16 possible combinations but since a 2-3 and a 3-3 combination are pronouced the same the are only 15.

This seems a bit more complicated than the Swedish version. I guess the complication in Swedish is that the pitch accent is not indicated in spelling (don't know if it is indicated in dictionaries). So learning the correct pronounciation for a word you have never heard spoken might be tricky.

[Aristotle]

Swedish does have some words which are distinguished only by pitch patterns. The most common example is anden which means either "the spirit" or "the duck" just depending on the pitch contour.

Ha, true. Didn't think of that. I yield. However, you're also right in that it's very limited in Swedish. Swedish might be considered a tonal (or pitch accent) language, but Mandarin is tone based. Anyway, that's nothing to do with the topic here, so I'll leave it.

(Just one more thing. I'd really pronounce them an2den4 and an4den4, not an1den4. And I think many would agree with me, just for the record.)

Most Swedes able to name it call it the Viby "i". Lidingö "i" is he name in the Stockholm area. Viby in county Närke is rather rural.

Really? I come from Karlskoga, close to Närke, and I've never heard it called that. Eh, never mind.

Aristotle, I'm afraid you need to scrape this theory away before someone else sees it. Terms such as "average" and "standard" are simply social notions, and doesn't have any physiological bases to give anyone any advantages in learning another language.

I disagree. Maybe English wasn't a good example, since it's spoken in so many countries. But if we talk just UK English, then don't you agree that there's a "standard" dialect spoken in the media? It cannot really be traced to a specific area, but it's rather a conglomerate of all the dialects put together. Everyone can understand it. You don't get many TV reporters speaking cockney, do you?

Of course, if you're an Indian English speaker but have to use materials/ standards intended for American English speakers to learn Chinese (as often is the case), then you would have some problems of adjusting to the terms of reference, just as an American English speaker would, if he uses materials/ standards intended for Indian English speakers.

I think you misunderstood me here. I never said that Indian English speakers would have a harder time learning Mandarin than American English speakers. I said they'd have a harder time learning Irish English than someone speaking the more generalized "media" English. Then I tried to apply that theory to languages in general, saying that a language that is an "average" of all the world's languages would be best suited to learn languages in general. Which language that would be, I haven't the faintest.

Hypothetical example: say that some over-zealous linguist collected the sounds representing each word or concept in every language in the world. After that, he imported all the sounds into a computer, which analyzed every sound and found out the sounds most often associated with each concept, narrowed it down to just a few syllables and made it into a new word. Then it'd do a similar exercise with grammar, analyzing which was the most common way of indicating possession, etc. It'd put all of this together to form a language, and the over-zealous linguist would teach the language to a child. My theory is that this child would have an easy time learning new languages in general. Of course, it'd be easier for a Swede to learn Danish than for this child, but much harder to learn Swahili.

This was quite an unneccessary post, but wasn't it a fun thought experiment? No? Well, .