Internationally, BYU is known as \u201cthe language university.\u201d The 2017 edition of the pamphlet Y Facts<\/i> reported that approximately 65 percent of BYU students speak more than one language.<\/p>\n
Let me do a quick survey to see if those assembled here today are representative of BYU students in general. If you know more than one language, please raise your hand. [The majority of the audience raised their hand.]<\/p>\n
I hope you realize how extraordinary it is that you have been given the gift of being able to communicate in more than one language. Think about it: language is the most complex of all human behaviors, and most of you can communicate in more than one language.<\/p>\n
Since we can all read English, I would like to demonstrate the complexity of language by giving you a simple English test. How would you read \u201cSt. Paul St.\u201d aloud?<\/p>\n
You probably said, \u201cSaint Paul Street.\u201d And your response to this simple task was likely not only correct but automatic. But can you explain to another person the rule for determining what the abbreviation \u201cSt.\u201d stands for? Perhaps you would say that \u201cSt.\u201d before a noun is an abbreviation for \u201csaint,\u201d and \u201cSt.\u201d after a noun is an abbreviation for \u201cstreet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now test your rule on the following street sign, which I saw near Disneyland in California: \u201cSt. College St.\u201d<\/p>\n
Oops, there is no saint named College! However, there is a state college, so we will have to refine our rule for pronouncing the abbreviation \u201cSt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yes, even simple<\/i> language is complex. Language is so complex that we are often hard pressed to explain how it operates. Yet we are generally unaware of how complex language is. In some ways language is like the air we breathe: we don\u2019t pay attention to it\u2014unless there is something wrong with it.<\/p>\n
Because people don\u2019t pay attention to language unless there is something wrong with it, you should not take compliments about your language skills too seriously. The fact that someone complimented you on your language is an indication that they noticed it\u2014and that happens when there is something wrong with it.<\/p>\n
Early in my mission in Austria, I was quite confident of my German language ability. In fact, several members had told me how well I spoke German. Then one Sunday after I said a prayer in sacrament meeting, I overheard some members commenting on my language skills.<\/p>\n
One sister offered the critique, \u201cWar das nicht lieb? Genau wie ein kleines Kind!<\/i>\u201d Which means, \u201cWasn\u2019t that sweet? Just like a little child!\u201d<\/p>\n
The sister who made the comment was too kind to ever provide that honest feedback to me personally, so I was grateful that I had overheard the comment she had made to others. Her candid assessment let me know that I needed to improve my language skills.<\/p>\n
Another mission experience taught me how complicated it is to translate a concept from one language to another.<\/p>\n
One of the best interpreters I have ever observed was Immo Luschin. At a regional conference in Vienna, Austria, Brother Luschin was asked to interpret the visiting speaker\u2019s English remarks into German.<\/p>\n
Outside, snow was falling, and inside the chapel the heating system was struggling to cope with the cold weather. Noticing that those in attendance were shivering, the speaker began his remarks with the comment \u201cBrothers and sisters, I see that many are cold but few are frozen.\u201d<\/p>\n
Put yourself in the place of Brother Luschin. If you had been the interpreter, how would you have interpreted that pun?<\/p>\n
Without a pause, Brother Luschin said in German, \u201cOur speaker has just made a marvelous play on words that cannot be translated. Would everyone please laugh?\u201d<\/p>\n
Surprised by the request, the \u00adcongregation laughed spontaneously, and the speaker \u00adproceeded\u2014oblivious to both the challenge he had given the interpreter and the skillful way in which that challenge had been handled.<\/p>\n
From that and other experiences with translation, I have concluded that when translating from one complex language into another complex language, the challenge one faces is a challenge that might be best described mathematically, not as complexity + complexity but as complexity x complexity, or complexity2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n Because language is the most complex of human behaviors, it follows that language learning presents a formidable challenge. In fact, language study is a discipline that supports all four of the aims of a BYU education. As you know,<\/p>\n a BYU education should be (1) spiritually strengthening, (2) intellectually enlarging, and (3) character building, leading to (4) lifelong learning and \u00adservice. <\/i>[The Mission of Brigham Young University<\/i> and The Aims of a BYU Education <\/i>(Provo: BYU, 2014), 5]<\/p>\n Let me show how language learning supports each of those four aims.<\/p>\n <\/b>Reading the scriptures in more than one language gives you a more nuanced and fuller understanding of their intent than you can get from reading them in only one language.<\/p>\n Joseph Smith possessed a multilingual Bible, and in one speech he reported:<\/p>\n I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me. <\/i>[Teachings,<\/i> 349]<\/p>\n This comment from Joseph Smith also shows the value of having a translator who understands the content of what is being translated. When translators do not know the intended meaning of the original text, aberrations will occur. Joseph\u2019s awareness of the sometimes-conflicting translations of the Bible likely contributed to the caveat in the eighth article of faith that \u201cwe believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.\u201d<\/p>\n Elder Quentin L. Cook pointed out in his April 2017 general conference address that the Greek word translated as \u201cvirtue\u201d in Luke 8:46<\/a> in the King James Version of the Bible is translated as \u201cpower\u201d in the Spanish and Portuguese versions of that scripture (see \u201cFoundations of Faith<\/a>,\u201d Ensign,<\/i> May 2017). We do not know why the translators of the King James Version of the Bible chose to use the word virtue<\/i> instead of power<\/i> in Luke 8:46. But we do know that they translated the very same Greek word as \u201cpower\u201d when they translated it in Matthew 6:13<\/a>, which contains the familiar wording \u201cFor thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.\u201d<\/p>\n As Joseph Smith found, misalignments between different translations of Bible texts are the result of choices made by translators\u2014and those differences invite further study to determine which translation best aligns with the revealed truths of the restored gospel.<\/p>\n The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, \u201cThe limits of my language mean the limits of my world\u201d (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus<\/i> [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1922], \u00adpostulate 5.6, p. 74, gutenberg.org\/files\/5740\/5740 Even here there is a translation issue. In the original German form, Wittgenstein used bedeuten<\/i>, which is usually translated as the English word mean <\/i>(Tractatus, <\/i>postulate 5.6, p. 144). However, when talking about boundaries or borders, I think the word define<\/i> is more consistent with the intent of the original statement, and one might even argue for the use of the word determine.<\/i><\/p>\n While Wittgenstein\u2019s rationale for this postulate is philosophically more complicated than most realize, the implication is easily understood that someone with ability in more than one language can operate in more areas of the world.<\/p>\n John Taylor put the relationship between the breadth of our language and the breadth of our perceived intellect much more bluntly. Speaking in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in 1852, he said:<\/p>\n It is good for the Elders to become acquainted with the languages, for they may have to go abroad, and should be able to talk to the people, and not look like fools. I care not how much intelligence you have got, if you \u00adcannot exhibit it you look like an ignoramus. <\/i>[JD<\/i> 1:27]<\/p>\n Some of you may be asking yourselves, \u201cWait, what about the gift of tongues?\u201d<\/p>\n Elder Taylor anticipated your question. He went on to say, \u201cYou may say, I thought the Lord would give us the gift of tongues. He won\u2019t if we are too indolent to study them\u201d (JD<\/i> 1:27).<\/p>\n We can understand that serving a foreign-\u00adlanguage-speaking mission can expand our intellectual and cultural horizons, but it has been difficult to quantify the extent of that intellectual growth. When I arrived at BYU in 2004, I repeatedly heard the question \u201cHow well do returning missionaries speak the language they learned \u00adduring their missionary service?\u201d<\/p>\n We have been trying to answer that question. To support that research, we have been testing returned missionaries using internationally recognized proficiency tests that are based on a hierarchy of functional communication ability. I have summarized the major levels of the proficiency scale applied in those tests into the following categories:<\/p>\n Novice:<\/b> I can communicate main ideas using words and phrases.<\/p>\n Intermediate:<\/b> I can communicate in sentence-length exchanges, such as in informal question-and-answer situations.<\/p>\n Advanced:<\/b> I can communicate factual information and supporting details in paragraphs woven into cohesive, lengthy narrations and descriptions.<\/p>\n Superior:<\/b> I can spontaneously deliver elaborate explanations and abstract reasoning in extended presentations and discussions.<\/p>\n [See \u201cACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012,\u201d American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, actfl.org\/publications\/guidelines-and-manuals\/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012]<\/p>\n Please note that this scale describes one\u2019s \u00adspontaneous, sustained level of language abilities, not one\u2019s rehearsed or memorized abilities.<\/p>\n Looking at this summary, how would you rate your second-language proficiency? Which statement best fits your ability level?<\/p>\n If you are a returned missionary and you rated yourself as an \u201cadvanced\u201d speaker, you are probably right.<\/p>\n Some results from our initial research compare the proficiency results of 391 recently returned missionaries studying at BYU with the proficiency levels of 501 non-BYU students who were junior- and senior-year language majors studying at five large liberal arts colleges with study abroad programs. On average, returned missionaries are more proficient speakers of their second language than are language majors graduating from other large U.S. universities. That is good news! (See Dan Dewey and Ray T. Clifford, \u201cThe Development of Speaking Proficiency of LDS Missionaries,\u201d in Second Language Acquisition Abroad: The LDS Missionary Experience, <\/i>ed. Lynne Hansen [Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012], 29\u201349.)<\/p>\n But we must remember that despite having developed a significant level of conversational fluency, the speech of returned missionaries showed consistent patterns of grammatical and vocabulary deficiencies\u2014and those deficiencies limited their ability to communicate clearly about nuanced, complicated subjects.<\/p>\n Only 6 percent of the returned missionaries had attained a \u201csuperior\u201d level of proficiency (see Dewey and Clifford, \u201cDevelopment of Speaking Proficiency,\u201d 36). That is an important threshold, because the \u201csuperior\u201d level of proficiency is the level required for professional jobs in diplomacy, business, and higher education.<\/p>\n All language majors at BYU now take proficiency tests as part of their senior capstone course, and the data show that further language study at BYU adds value, is intellectually enlarging, and improves students\u2019 language proficiency.<\/p>\n <\/b>What builds character? In my experience, for an activity to build character it must be inherently good, it must require concerted effort, and it must demand perseverance over an extended period of time.<\/p>\n Language study meets all three of these \u00adcharacter-building prerequisites.<\/p>\n First, we know that language learning is good. In Doctrine and Covenants 90:15<\/a> we are counseled to \u201cbecome acquainted with all good books.\u201d And as a reminder that not all good books are written in English, the verse adds, \u201cand with languages, tongues, and people.\u201d<\/p>\nThe Challenge of Language Learning<\/b><\/h2>\n
Language Study Is Spiritually Strengthening<\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n
Language Study Is Intellectually Enlarging<\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n
\n-pdf.pdf).<\/p>\nLanguage Study Is Character Building<\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n