Should We Teach American Children Esperanto?

I, too, am a strong supporter of Esperanto and learning languages, but I do not support this measure either.
There is already too much government influence in education at all levels. I believe that the entire public school system is a great danger to children and should be abolished.
On the other hand, Esperanto is a great first foreign language for kids to learn, both for its own sake and as a stepping stone to other languages.

I understand your position. However, the idea of teaching Esperanto first is a matter of economics and language-learning effectiveness. Let’s suppose the student learns just one language in school, any language besides Esperanto. To make it worthwhile, s/he’d have to devote several years to that language – let’s say four. Studies (experiments, if you like) suggest that learning Esperanto first for a year – enough to truly master the language – can shave more than a year off the four years spent on the following language. Wouldn’t Esperanto then be worth learning first, even if it were never used again?

A valid reply to the above question would be to learn any other language first – you’d still get the time-savings benefits on the second language, plus you’d have two “real” languages instead of one “real” language plus Esperanto. However, preceding the first language with Esperanto would save more than it would cost on both of the following languages, so it would still be worth learning first.

If you like, think of Esperanto as a language-learning enhancement technique, not a language. If you then decide to see it as a language, so much the better.

There is a practical matter to be considered as well, and that is where are we going to find enough qualified, trained teachers to implement this idea? If I don’t count the people I know online, I have only ever met one person who could speak Esperanto.

In a traditional American school setting, it seems as though Esperanto would be the ideal choice for introducing kids to language at the middle school level (say ages 11-13). Then they would have a fantastic base before choosing another language in high school. I’m with you there! But I am a proponent of quality, long range, articulated programs beginning as early as possible. Would a 5 year old who has not developed analytical skills benefit from a year of Esperanto? From what I know about language acquisition and child development, it doesn’t seem as though it would matter if a child were learning Esperanto, French or Chinese. Children learn language holistically.

I know I’m jumping around a lot here, but in response to the first comment–how will we educate all children if the public school system is completely abolished? Most of my career has been spent teaching in independent schools, but I’m currently teaching in a public school, and my children are attending public school. I think we need to address the problems, not abolish public education completely.

A long-time user of Esperanto, I’ve attended world congresses in France, Iceland and China, where Esperanto was used exclusively for 2,000+ people from 50+ countries. It works, and is an ideal first “foreign” language for anyone, as well as an introduction to basic linguistics. It has a big literature, original and translated and has cultural value for those who become fluent. People assume that there must be something wrong with it if it so little known and taught, but after 120 years it has proven itself: the only constructed language to get a life!

You make good points about finding enough qualified instructors, and about introducing languages very early in schools. I believe, however, that Esperanto could be of benefit in both cases.

Esperanto is the only language with which I am acquainted that can be learned effectively by the average student through correspondence or self-study. It is also the only language with which I am acquainted in which full mastery is possible for the average student after a year of serious study. Good learning resources are available through the Internet right now. I believe that with proper coordination, a corps of qualified Esperanto teachers can be just a year away by making existing resources available to certified teachers, preferably those experienced in language acquisition, but not necessarily so.

I’m no expert on pedagogy, so the analysis that follows may be completely out in left field. That said, it seems to me that holistic language learning implies using and living a language – that is, some form of immersion – as opposed to analytic learning, which implies dissecting and studying it. I’m therefore guessing that holistic teaching would benefit more from fluent language skills in teachers, preferably native or near-native level. Raising a corps of teachers with both near-native or native fluency and recognized teaching credentials would take several years, much longer and at much greater expense than it would take to raise a corps of teachers with similar Esperanto skills.

Very young children are indeed able to absorb languages. However, even though making no conscious effort to do so, they nevertheless work out the rules first, then sort out the irregularities later on. Esperanto is simple, lacks grammatical irregularities, and possesses a regular and extensible word-formation system, so that once the few grammar rules are assimilated, they will always be applied correctly, and once lexemes are acquired, they can be combined at will. In Esperanto, the form that comes to mind is the correct form, even in a young child. Achieving mastery of Esperanto will take less time than for other languages, regardless of age. How important is the emotional element of language learning in younger children? If it is significant, then would not the quicker, easier acquisition of Esperanto boost language-learning confidence and desire, even in young children?

A program you may find interesting is Springboard to Languages. Piloted now in four U.K. schools, it uses Esperanto to build language awareness and skills among primary-school children.

Hi Diane…

I have to say that I’m surprised that a government would endorse one language teaching over all the others… I call it «ingérence».

Of course, Esperanto can be learned quicker… my question is: if very young children get exposure to something «easy» right from the beginning, they might be reluctant to learn any other languages that would require more effort and discipline.

I don’t know, I might be wrong… but it occurs to me that Americans never were into learning languages in the first place… would the idea of learning Esperanto be an incentive to acquire another language? Give them something easy and maybe they’ll become interested?…

Personally, I never met anyone who actually knew how to speak Esperanto yet I met a few who were fervent (couldn’t speak it though!)… Therefore what would be the practical side of it? In order to use a language, you need people to communicate with. And we all know this provebial quote: «don’t use it, lose it!»…

Very interesting post!

If I can be so bold as to address Lyne’s reply…

Esperanto is easier, but it’s not a “slacker” or watered-down language. It still requires effort and discipline to learn and correctly apply the grammar and vocabulary. The difference is that absolute regularity and free recombination of word roots make the effort and discipline pay off much sooner than for other languages. I’m not convinced that introducing young children to something easy to start with discourages tackling something more difficult later on – doesn’t teaching generally start with simple, easy and accessible, then work up, regardless of subject matter and age?

I agree, Americans aren’t that much into languages. Nevertheless, I would answer your questions about Esperanto and Americans in the affirmative. Esperanto can be mastered in less than a year. Doing so is both a complete workout in language learning and a strong confirmation of one’s ability to learn a language. It seems to happen frequently that people who learn Esperanto discover a desire or confidence to learn other languages.

Are you sure you’ve never met anyone who could speak Esperanto? I speak it, but I don’t go broadcasting it to people I meet, so who would know? People actually do speak it – about 2,000,000 in over 120 countries, now much more accessible thanks to the Internet. Another source of people to speak with is fellow Esperanto students and teacher(s) – one would hope that a good course would get students practicing their skills with each other .

Might I suggest trying it out to see what it’s like? Kurso de Esperanto is a free, downloadable multimedia self-study introductory course, and Lernu! has several free courses of various levels (click on “Courses”).

No problem at all with boldness Michjo!

My comment was based upon a Canadian’s point of view. In my country, we have two official languages: English and French. Therefore if any effort is invested into learning a second language, people will first focus on either English or French because it’s a matter of survival, job opportunities and professional advancement. Consequently, Esperanto isn’t a big deal around here! And when people wish to learn a third language, Spanish is the most popular one.

Of course, as a Corporate FSL Training Consultant, I often hear comments on how much easier and quicker it would be to learn a language such as Esperanto yet no one ever considered the idea seriously: they have to learn either French or English to communicate in their daily life in the office…. as I said, it’s a matter of survival!

The only problem I have with Esperanto is that no-one knows it has become a a living language.

Please check therefore http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670

Otherwise http://www.lernu.net http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670

Otherwise http://www.lernu.net

Lyne,

I sympathize with you entirely – I’m Canadian myself. I grew up in English-speaking Alberta, and although I studied French from Grade VII, neither I nor any of the students I knew could really speak French when we got out of high school (we had a fairly good knowledge of French, but no fluency to speak of). It wasn’t for lack of ability: I was top of my French class, and I now speak French at about native level, but only after years of additional study and practice, including living abroad and marrying a native French speaker.

Had I learned Esperanto first, I would have had a significant head-start when I got to French. There’s no magic to it: in achieving fluency in a language, the student learns to wrap his or her mind around something large and complex and express him- or herself in a radically different way, with confidence in his or her ability to do so. Following languages consequently become easier. Esperanto can be mastered quickly enough – less than a year – for the time saved on the following language to be greater than the time spent on Esperanto. True, the same savings could be realized by starting with another language – say, Spanish – but the student who learned Esperanto first would then come out ahead in Spanish – and French. However you stack it, learning Esperanto before French would have been worthwhile.

This principle could be applied profitably in Canada: English-speaking Canadians would come out of high school with a better level of French, and French-speaking Canadians with a better level of English. The benefits of having learned Esperanto – and then French or English – would also carry over to a third language, such as Spanish or Portuguese.

In addition, Esperanto is also a language in its own right, with an extremely diverse worldwide community of about 2,000,000 speakers. True, it’s not a huge number (yet), but it is growing and receiving ever increasing attention. This benefit would come at no additional cost, if Esperanto were used as described above.

The idea behind Esperanto is not to replace, but to supplement. Canadians can and, indeed, should continue to learn both English and French. With Esperanto, students will come out with better English and French – with the added benefit of knowing Esperanto.

Okay, I’ve got to admit that I have learned A LOT about Esperanto from the comments to this post. Dankon

Hi, Lyne. You said: “I have to say that I’m surprised that a government would endorse one language teaching over all the others”
In fact, I have to say that I’m surprised that a government DOESN’T endorse one language teaching over all the others. I am nor familiar with Canadian or U.S. educational systems, but in my country (Spain) it’s the government who determines the first language to be taught in most schools.
(Guess which? Not Esperanto… yet )

This is a good debate, with views expressed sensibly and rationally, but may I comment on the “I’ve never met …” argument?
I’ve never met anyone who goes shark fishing. So?
Does that tell us more about shark fishing or about me? It certainly doesn’t tell us that shark fishing as an activity doesn’t exist. It tells us that I haven’t been to places where sharks are fished and sought out those who fish them. Even in Canada there are delegates to the Universala Esperanto-Asocio whose names and addresses I have here in front of me! Also, Michjo rightly points out that we don’t all wear our Esperanto badge all the time – I’m sure I have many contacts who don’t know I speak Esperanto. Moreover, did you know there’s a worldwide network of people willing to give overnight accommodation to Esperanto speakers? Information in English can be found at http://www.tejo.org/eo/ps_lingv_en
Let me say, too, as the visiting Esperanto teacher in two of the four schools in the UK piloting the “Springboard” project, that we’ve been delighted with the support for Esperanto teaching shown in the vote on change.org which was this discussion’s starting point.

With over 120 different countries contributing to the cultural background of Esperantists, it would be hard to say that there is a lack of cultural understanding developed through Esperanto learning. At the very least, it seems like the students would be able to learn that typical national stereotypes of many nations are not always true.