Foreign Languages Requirements

[thedig13]

I'm aware of the fact that most grad schools require you to know a relevant foreign language before you can get your MA.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that grad schools are more likely to accept an applicant if they (already) have some familiarity with the language they intend to study.

So, my question is this: if you never received any *formal* education in the foreign language (i.e. college courses), but you managed to learn some other way (i.e. private tutor), is this still something that you would be able to mention on an application, and is it something the grad school would acknowledge and take seriously?

Or, should I not worry about that? If you've never taken any courses on a certain language before, how difficult is it to master the language to the extent necessary to quality for a MA?

P.S. If it makes any different, I'm planning on either using French or Russian as my other language.

Edited May 25, 2011 by thedig13

[StrangeLight]

if your sources are in your foreign language, you absolutely need to have reading proficiency down to even be accepted into an MA program. if you plan on studying russian history, but you can't really read russian yet, very few reputable programs will take you on.

most programs will require you to have two or more foreign languages for the PhD, with at least one fully in your command (reading) by the end of the MA. it's hard to master two languages at once, which is further reason to already have one under your belt.

if you're not a native speaker and you haven't taken college classes in the language, programs will still consider self-taught or privately-tutored languages valid, but you need to prove you can use them. if you're an americanist or britainist working in english, don't sweat the language stuff too much, but mention in your SOP that you have reading/writing/speaking knowledge of french or russian. if you're in any other field, even if you think your sources will be in english, you would be well served to give them a writing sample that includes primary sources in the foreign language, demonstrating that you can actually read it. they don't care how you acquire the skill, they just want you to have it.

as for what level of training is considered adequate, that can vary. in my own program, 3 years (or 6 semesters) of language training with at least a B in the classes is considered proficient. my school also offers "french for reading" classes where you can get the proficiency requirement in only 1 year. it's supposed to be an intensive translation class, but anyone who takes it has zero command of the french language and can't make sense out of simple sentences without aid of a dictionary, so... in terms of actually helping them learn and use the language, it's completely useless.

most programs will require you to take a translation exam, even if you have six semesters or the equivalent in language classes. basically, look for an academic journal in your foreign language. if you can directly translate one page and summarize 2-3 pages, all in two hours and with the aid of a dictionary, then that's considered sufficient.

[thedig13]

if your sources are in your foreign language, you absolutely need to have reading proficiency down to even be accepted into an MA program. if you plan on studying russian history, but you can't really read russian yet, very few reputable programs will take you on.

most programs will require you to have two or more foreign languages for the PhD, with at least one fully in your command (reading) by the end of the MA. it's hard to master two languages at once, which is further reason to already have one under your belt.

if you're not a native speaker and you haven't taken college classes in the language, programs will still consider self-taught or privately-tutored languages valid, but you need to prove you can use them. if you're an americanist or britainist working in english, don't sweat the language stuff too much, but mention in your SOP that you have reading/writing/speaking knowledge of french or russian. if you're in any other field, even if you think your sources will be in english, you would be well served to give them a writing sample that includes primary sources in the foreign language, demonstrating that you can actually read it. they don't care how you acquire the skill, they just want you to have it.

as for what level of training is considered adequate, that can vary. in my own program, 3 years (or 6 semesters) of language training with at least a B in the classes is considered proficient. my school also offers "french for reading" classes where you can get the proficiency requirement in only 1 year. it's supposed to be an intensive translation class, but anyone who takes it has zero command of the french language and can't make sense out of simple sentences without aid of a dictionary, so... in terms of actually helping them learn and use the language, it's completely useless.

most programs will require you to take a translation exam, even if you have six semesters or the equivalent in language classes. basically, look for an academic journal in your foreign language. if you can directly translate one page and summarize 2-3 pages, all in two hours and with the aid of a dictionary, then that's considered sufficient.

So, they don't mind if you use a dictionary for your translation exam at the MA level?

Also, I'm probably going to be an Americanist focusing on the consequences of Cold War politics and consumer culture on the World as a whole. I was thinking maybe Russian so that I could analyze the politics of the Cold War from the perspective of the Soviet Union, and maybe French because I have a particular interest in America's role in the development of modern-day Algeria. One topic I've been juggling around in my head lately is the role of American consumerism on the rest of the World as seen through the blood diamond trade in Sierra Leone (a primarily-English-speaking nation). Does that make any difference?

Edited May 25, 2011 by thedig13

[StrangeLight]

yeah, most translation exams let you use a dictionary. every school is different, but i'd say the majority let you bring a dictionary in with you.

for many (but not all) programs, americanists are only required to have one foreign language, not two (or more). this doesn't apply everywhere, but often enough that most americanists can assume they won't need two foreign languages for even top programs. the languages definitely don't hurt, though. in general, these are just minimum numbers of languages. in all cases, you will be expected to know (or learn) whatever languages you need to complete your particular project. many students (and many more professors) redesign their arguments so they can avoid acquiring new languages, but i'm of the opinion that we should go where the sources take us. in my own program, i know a latin americanist that learned german, an indianist that learned portuguese, and an americanist that learned italian, polish, and yiddish, all because that's what language their sources were in.

if you go with the algeria project, you'll need french and arabic. for the russian one, probably russian and french. for sierra leone, you'll need whatever language the business documents are in (my gut would say french and german, but that's a guess). so basically... it makes a huge difference which project you want to do. i'd also suggest considering applying as an africanist, a russianist, or a world historian rather than an americanist. those fields would serve your interests a lot more than being a modern americanist would.

[thedig13]

yeah, most translation exams let you use a dictionary. every school is different, but i'd say the majority let you bring a dictionary in with you.

for many (but not all) programs, americanists are only required to have one foreign language, not two (or more). this doesn't apply everywhere, but often enough that most americanists can assume they won't need two foreign languages for even top programs. the languages definitely don't hurt, though. in general, these are just minimum numbers of languages. in all cases, you will be expected to know (or learn) whatever languages you need to complete your particular project. many students (and many more professors) redesign their arguments so they can avoid acquiring new languages, but i'm of the opinion that we should go where the sources take us. in my own program, i know a latin americanist that learned german, an indianist that learned portuguese, and an americanist that learned italian, polish, and yiddish, all because that's what language their sources were in.

if you go with the algeria project, you'll need french and arabic. for the russian one, probably russian and french. for sierra leone, you'll need whatever language the business documents are in (my gut would say french and german, but that's a guess). so basically... it makes a huge difference which project you want to do. i'd also suggest considering applying as an africanist, a russianist, or a world historian rather than an americanist. those fields would serve your interests a lot more than being a modern americanist would.

The thing is, my primary interest is more about how U.S. consumer culture, politics, and attitudes play a role in the economies and development of those areas, rather than the history of those regions in and of themselves. Do you still think World History would serve me better than American History?

[TMP]

The thing is, my primary interest is more about how U.S. consumer culture, politics, and attitudes play a role in the economies and development of those areas, rather than the history of those regions in and of themselves. Do you still think World History would serve me better than American History?

What would you want your primary field exam to be in? What would you want to teach?

If it's US history, don't bother learning Russian. Really. It's a very difficult language that even 2 years of college-level Russian won't be enough to handle the Soviet archives. Learn it when you have to through intensive summer program (which hopefully will be supported by a FLAS fellowship or some other grant).

[StrangeLight]

The thing is, my primary interest is more about how U.S. consumer culture, politics, and attitudes play a role in the economies and development of those areas, rather than the history of those regions in and of themselves. Do you still think World History would serve me better than American History?

i bring up working on those other regions since many people who work exclusively on other parts of the world write entire books about the influence of US culture, politics, and attitudes on those regions. in latin american historiography, for example, there are several works on the role of US politics in central america (see greg grandin's the last colonial massacre and the empire's workshop) or about the influence of US consumer culture (see john soluri's banana cultures). a colleague of mine is an eastern europeanist, and his dissertation is all about the influence of shell oil and cold war politics in romania. i merely brought up being an africanist or russianist because you will see many people that define themselves as such (or at least not as americanists) that are working on some of the same major themes and issues you're interested in.

but if you ultimately want to teach US history and take your comps exams in US history, then by all means still be an americanist.

regarding your initial question on languages, however, the same stands... the more you have, the better, if you already have them. regardless of how many languages your program expects you to master for the degree, you will need to be able to read every language that your particular dissertation project demands. my advice would be to ask some of your undergrad profs to give you their thoughts on your ideas and which languages they think might be relevant for you to know. if you can get reading knowledge of the language before you send off applications, that'll be a big bonus. if you can demonstrate in your application that you'll have the reading knowledge eventually, that will help too.

[thedig13]

Yeah. I definitely think I'll go with being Americanist, largely because, ultimately, I want to be able to teach U.S. History, and I want my primary field exam to be on the U.S.

Thanks for the help, guys.