[SpecialistK]

I only speak English, but I have found and theorized that one's ability to learn and retain a L2 is heavily affected by your society's "need" to communicate outside of the national language. This article largely reinforces that theory.

If people do not have a need to learn another language, it becomes an uphill battle. People in Finland report higher levels of English competency than people in France (despite French being much closer to English than Finnish is) because there are so many fewer Finnish speakers. Finns wanting to experience warm beaches or global cities need to communicate when traveling to those places outside of Finland. France meanwhile has mountains, beaches, a big domestic market, ample media, and international reach.

Japan is much more like France than Finland - the geographic diversity allows one to ski or sunbathe within the same country. The domestic market for goods and services is huge. Japan creates and exports so much culture that English speakers wish to learn Japanese to consume more of it. When there is little "need" to learn another language, it is not only less enticing but actually harder to do so.

This culminates in anglophones being at a disadvantage in acquiring a L2 compared to nearly anyone else. A lot of people worldwide do want to practice their English with a native speaker. Many international institutions use English as the lingua franca. Even during a layover in Montreal, my (then) girlfriend ordered a smoothie in French and was replied to in English (this could be a commentary on Canadian bilingualism, but I'll leave that for another day) - it's hard for an anglophone to practice and perfect another language when the world around them already speaks better English than their L2.

So considering Japan's strong domestic market, culture, and the stark differences between the languages, it was never a shock to me that their English proficiency isn't where one would immediately expect it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the deep experience behind them.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

Suomi mainittu. As an English speaker who moved to Finland and has been steadily learning Finnish over the last few years, I definitely have to agree: My progress would probably be faster (and more painful) if I actually had any immediate need to speak Finnish.

Don't twist my words here, I am still extremely grateful that Finns speak such excellent English. It's the only reason I felt like I could make it finding a job here after moving right after completing college. And it's definitely a cornerstone of Finnish success in international markets. I would very, very gladly take this tradeoff again. But, yes, trial by fire usually sets learning alight.

[qingcharles]

How hard have you found Finnish? As a language addict, I've always heard (and seen) that it is very hard. Hungarian hard.

I worked for Nokia for a while, but was lucky that everyone I spoke to in Finland spoke perfect English.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

It's about as hard as you think, yeah. Its quasi-isolate nature means that both its vocabulary and its grammar structure are pretty alien to anyone from the outside looking in.

On the other hand, Finns are super active on the Internet. There's a lot of Finnish content out there if you know where to look. ChatGPT writes passable, if clearly English-word-ordered, Finnish, as confirmed by my native speaker wife. So it's a long climb to the top -- but at least you have a lot of comprehensible input to work with. Can't quite say that for, say, the Algonquian languages.

[TimK65]

I have a somewhat related theory about English in Europe: The smaller countries are better at English partly because they subtitle rather than dubbing. That means that when they see English-language movies or watch English-language television, they're hearing English rather than their native language. I think this helps people maintain some level of English proficiency years after they leave school.

(I'm American, living in Stockholm, by the way.)

[lmm]

AIUI the available evidence is that that doesn't help (and that matches my experience of watching a lot of Japanese content with subtitles in my younger years). What goes into memory is the semantics you understood, and when you're taking in translated content you take in the version in your native language and discard the foreign sounds that didn't contribute to the part you understood.

[rjsw]

I felt this from working in the Netherlands. One thing that may change it in larger countries is digital TV, the broadcast can have both original and dubbed soundtracks available.

[TulliusCicero]

That's probably most of it, but the way Japan typically teaches English is sort of notoriously bad. That probably doesn't help either.

> If people do not have a need to learn another language, it becomes an uphill battle.

You do see some Japanese companies talking up the need for English competency; I suppose if more and more companies there use English competency as one thing they're looking for in job applicants, that might cause a shift elsewhere, as suddenly there's a 'need' (and thus a motivation).

[MichaelZuo]

There are Japanese diplomats with nearly flawless English skills though…

[macintux]

I would wager that most diplomats come from a very privileged upbringing. As the article indicates, wealthier families can afford private English tutoring, which causes some friction with proposed changes to testing standards.

[MichaelZuo]

So why can't Japanese companies hire the genuinely bilingual as employees/consultants/etc.?

[autumnstwilight]

They can and do, but struggle with the following problems: - Assessing English proficiency. It's hard to do if you can't speak English yourself, and so they tend to fall back on numeric measures like test scores (which someone who has grown up overseas and speaks English at a native level might not bother to take, and someone who has grinded for a test might pass while having mediocre communication ability).

- Paying fluent English speakers enough to attract and keep them. Japanese salaries are low, and they tend to start all new hires at the same level and give gradual raises over time, with little consideration for special skills such as English ability. Fluent English speakers often either go overseas or work at international companies that pay more and also have better work-life balance.

- Many Japanese companies are rigid and formal in culture. Japanese people who have spent significant time overseas struggle to adjust, and they are not given the cultural leeway that a foreigner might be given.

- Control. There's a significant number of managers who are either micromanage-y or insecure about their own English ability and therefore can't just let a fluent speaker do their job without burdening them with nitpicky rules or insisting on rewriting things themselves.

[MichaelZuo]

Genuinely bilingual people, if they primarily come from the elite strata of Japanese society as the parent alleges, are not coming in as entry level employees, or even as middle management, but as upper management or consultants to upper management.

I’ve never heard of there being a shortage of vice presidents or managing directors before in any mid-size or larger company.

[lmm]

The usual reasons organisations find it impossible to do things: inability to maintain incentive alignment within the company, manifesting as unwillingness to reward genuine bilingualism with enough money/status to incentivise it.

[MichaelZuo]

Right, so it’s not important enough for the decision makers, in relative terms, compared to all the other priorities and goals they have.

Like all the other potentialities not realized an organization can have…

[DanielHB]

That is my experience with Brazil as well, it is very uncommon to find people who speak good english there in part because nobody ever travels outside the country.

[mike50]

French is widely spoken throughout the world. If you speak French you can travel to Canada, the Caribbean, Africa and parts of South America without needing to speak another language. Also French is an official language in Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg as well as being widely spoken and taught as a second language in contentental Europe. Japan is spoken mostly in Japan and expat communities.

[SpecialistK]

You're right that the simile starts falling apart when you look at it deeper, but on the whole I think it does provide a reasonable example: when you can experience international travel and business opportunities in your mother tongue it is less appealing and more difficult to learn another language. And this is what we see from French-speakers vs Finnish-speakers. Yes, French is much more global than Japanese is, but the end result is the same: if you speak French or Japanese, there are many more economic, cultural, and travel opportunities available without needing to learn a L2 than if you speak Finnish or Dutch or Hungarian. That's part of speaking a language with 100+ million speakers compared to 5 million speakers.

[lmm]

Ok, but what difference does that make in practice? Japanese people do not feel any compelling need to go outside Japan (many do not have passports) - they go on holiday within Japan (which has ski resorts, tropical islands, and everything in between) and consume entertainment in Japanese. I suspect many French people would still content speaking only French even if it wasn't spoken outside France, for the same reasons.

[numpad0]

The "addressable market" compares. Combined total of French speakers is estimated to be ~160m, against Japanese population of ~120m.

[shiroiushi]

I think you're greatly overstating the usefulness of French; I've noticed that French-speaking people seem to have this misconception about the importance of their language, not grasping that it's no longer the late 1800s or early 1900s. French is only widely spoken in former French colonies, which are all generally economic backwaters (which probably has a lot to do with how poorly France treated its colonies). I'm not aware of any significant parts of South America where you can speak French, outside French Guyana: anywhere else, and you need to speak Spanish or Portuguese, though you might be able to get by with English just due to its popularity as an international language (which French is not).

French might be "official" in Belgium and Switzerland, but that's about as useful as it also being "official" in Canada. Good luck speaking French to people in British Columbia or Alberta; only people in Quebec speak it. The same is largely true in Belgium or Switzerland: go outside the French-speaking area and you're going to have trouble. Luxembourg is a micronation.

[owenversteeg]

That's an interesting observation, and entirely correct from my experience in the Netherlands and other countries. Thank you for making me think!

In a more general case: it is hard to do hard things without a true need, and people consistently underestimate this. Learning a language is a great example; virtually everyone that moves to the Netherlands does not learn Dutch, because there is no need, but the Dutch speak English, because as a society we must. Many people that get rich, particularly in sales or banking or business, do it because they "have to" - socially or even financially. Plenty of people in relationships have problems and promise change to their partners - but don't really change until they must, when the divorce or breakup looms - and by then it's too late. Or, people wait until right before a deadline to do things; for more mundane daily things like work or cleaning, until it's late at night.

If you really want to do something, you need to be conscious about the doing. Routine and desire are important, but the best is to structure your life such that you must have the thing. You want to start a business? Schedule meetings, sign deals, find a cofounder that will get on your ass. You want to learn French, move to rural France and you simply will learn because you must. You want to get in shape? Join the military or the fire department. Extreme, yes - or not extreme enough? Shackleton, Grant's memoirs, Apollo 13 - Time and time again we as a species see that man rises to the challenge. One must only put the challenge in front of the man.