History PhD: Foreign Language Requirement

[Hypnotoad]

I am currently narrowing down the research areas that I think I'd like to focus on, and one aspect of my decision-making process is the language(s) that would be required for each area of specialization. I am wondering exactly how well you are expected to know a foreign language. In the past, my attempts to learn a foreign language have not exactly gone well. For whatever reason, it just never seemed to click for me like it did for other people. And I'm told the language I had a difficult time with, Spanish, is supposedly one of the easier ones for native speakers of English to learn. (Full disclosure: I definitely could have put in a lot more effort in learning Spanish, so maybe things would be different if I were really focused and determined in my second attempt.)

So I guess the first thing I'm asking is how proficient in a foreign language do you need to be in a 'typical' (if there is such a thing) graduate history program?

And the second question would be, am I going down the wrong path entirely by using the language requirement as one of the factors I'm (currently) using to narrow down my choice of specific research interests?

[crater21]

My understanding is that you need to be proficient enough to be able to read primary source texts in your required foreign language. Most universities give you a translation exercise to test your proficiency. You can find some of these online, so this can give you a good idea of the level of proficiency required. I have heard some people say that, as a very general rule, if you can read and understand a good quality newspaper in your required foreign language, you are probably fine.

As for your second question: I think it is smart to take languages into account when narrowing down your research focus. But, it shouldn't be the only factor. Some level of personal interest has to be prerequisite. You are basically going to be spending your entire professional life studying the particular area that you choose, so you want to be sure that something about it interests you.

[maeisenb]

I am currently narrowing down the research areas that I think I'd like to focus on, and one aspect of my decision-making process is the language(s) that would be required for each area of specialization. I am wondering exactly how well you are expected to know a foreign language. In the past, my attempts to learn a foreign language have not exactly gone well. For whatever reason, it just never seemed to click for me like it did for other people. And I'm told the language I had a difficult time with, Spanish, is supposedly one of the easier ones for native speakers of English to learn. (Full disclosure: I definitely could have put in a lot more effort in learning Spanish, so maybe things would be different if I were really focused and determined in my second attempt.)

So I guess the first thing I'm asking is how proficient in a foreign language do you need to be in a 'typical' (if there is such a thing) graduate history program?

And the second question would be, am I going down the wrong path entirely by using the language requirement as one of the factors I'm (currently) using to narrow down my choice of specific research interests?

It completely depends on what you want to work with for your language requirements. If you want to do American history, then you usually won't have to know as many languages (1 or maybe 2 depending on your area of interest) as compared to say Ancient History (which would be Latin, Greek, French, and German just to start). Spanish won't really be that helpful unless you are working on something about Spain itself, Latin America or something more 20th century American.

All of that being said, don't choose something based on language requirements. As Crater21 said above, you have to love what you are doing first and foremost and then go from there. You could use the language idea to tweak what you want to do within a given field, but definitely don't choose something just based on languages. So for example, if you are really into, say, Jewish immigration to the US at the turn of the 20th century and you would need Yiddish, but don't have that and know Italian really well you could instead focus on Italian immigration in the same period, while building the language skills you need for Yiddish and maybe that will get you interested in comparative accounts. If however you know Italian, but really love Soviet history without any knowledge of Russian, don't just pick something Italian for the sake of it. I hope those examples helped a bit even if they were completely made up...

[sacklunch]

I have a decent amount of ancient languages now, but I remember when I first started college I tried out Spanish (took it in high school) just because it's what 'everyone' does. I hated it and I did poorly (dropped the course). When I started learning languages that applied directly to my research I started to actually enjoy learning/studying them. Perhaps you will discover something similar?

[aspiringhistorian]

My understanding is that, once you're in the program, it's really only a matter of how proficient you are in being able to read (as crater21 said) the primary sources, etc in your chosen field. However, getting into a program without background in that language would be more difficult than already having that proficiency under your belt. Sometimes departments specify what the expect of their applicants when it comes to language, so peruse the websites for relevant info.

Good luck!

[TMP]

Much of the language training will come through the form of literature, film, and media. It can be a challenge to continue learning the language after you realize how much you don't really like reading that kind of literature. In order to successfully learn it well, you need to have strong appreciation for the culture, literature and history. I took Russian until my intermediate Russian class began using a film with a script to help us learn everyday Russian and I realize that Soviet films just weren't for me so I dropped the class (as much as I loved Russian/Soviet history). Some languages take longer than others to *love* if you don't have strong appreciation for its usage to begin with. I'm emphasizing literature here because reading novels in original language is a great way to get very comfortable with it!

[Sigaba]

Hypnotoad--

It will depend upon the specific program you are in and the professors tasked with vetting your ability to fulfill the requirements.

In my experience as an Americanist, the requirement was two languages. I satisfied one with course work in statistics that I did at a different institution. I cleared the other hurdle by passing a course in the German department where the grad student teaching the class did a lot of winking.

From classmates who were doing work in different areas, I heard a lot of horror stories. These stories included exams being administered by a history professors who had a very high level of fluency in a given language, and a part of those exams being oral.

Something that I realized while studying the cognitive psychology behind skill development for my outside field, and from hearing of the experiences of class mates who took their emerging language skills on the road, there can be a HUGE difference between learning a language well enough to fulfill a requirement and knowing that language well enough to do archival research.

Therefore, my suggestion is that you have a very clear idea of your goals when you study foreign languages.

HTH

[kyjin]

Like others have said, being able to read primary sources is the major goal. Speaking fluency is a huge help if you think you'll be spending a lot of time researching within a country where the target language is spoken, but to my knowledge that isn't always necessary.

You're not the only one who had a hard time with Spanish. I had four years of it in high school, and it never stuck in my head. (I can't remember any of it now.) When I went to college, I decided to take Japanese since I had an interest in the culture and needed to fill my foreign language requirement. Despite it being a very difficult language, it stuck in my head, and now five years later I'm studying Japanese history. In my case I still need to worry about learning to read classical Japanese and possibly some Chinese for my research, but the major hurdle is gone.

Long story short, think about what languages you would be interested in learning. Are there specific cultures you'd like to learn more about? Particular foreign films or literature you'd like to read in the original? It may help you find your way. Good luck!

[Sparky]

More directly to the point about whether it's a good idea to choose a program based on language requirement:

Different programs, and even different languages within the same department, can have *vastly* different ideas of what it means to demonstrate "proficiency" for testing purposes. The Latin test I passed for my MA is worlds, galaxies, and entire universes apart from the one I passed for my PhD. On the other hand, my PhD program was perfectly happy to take MA school's word that I am "proficient" in German (the Latin and German tests at MA school follow the same format. Here, not so much.)

[CageFree]

How important is it that you be able to WRITE in the language?

In my field, I need Spanish and Portuguese. I am practically a native speaker of Spanish (I learned it as a child and went to school in South America), but with Portuguese I can read it with 97% of comprehension - just a few vocab terms here or there. I understand it if the speaker goes VERY slow, but I can't speak it as of yet, let alone write it.

Should I spend time trying to learn how to write in it, or just develop spoken fluency and learn vocab?

[barricades]

Writing is not so important. In fact, one of the school's I applied to last year was a joint program in history and French studies. It entailed taking classes in French. I was concerned about not being a mediocre writer, at best, and asked the advisor about. He told me that actually they discourage students from writing in French.

Heard the same from straight up language programs, which I find funny.

[maeisenb]

How important is it that you be able to WRITE in the language?

In my field, I need Spanish and Portuguese. I am practically a native speaker of Spanish (I learned it as a child and went to school in South America), but with Portuguese I can read it with 97% of comprehension - just a few vocab terms here or there. I understand it if the speaker goes VERY slow, but I can't speak it as of yet, let alone write it.

Should I spend time trying to learn how to write in it, or just develop spoken fluency and learn vocab?

Only time would be if you are going to publish in a field that the major journals and or publications would be in that language. Or it would help to broaden your talents for sure though, but not particularly necessary.

[JKL]

Traditionally, you're just asked to become a proficient reader, for writing in the language isn't necessary during research. If you wanted to learn to write it, that would be something you'd have to do on your own time.

[seaofghosts]

I second the person above that said maybe it's the fault of the Spanish language, not you. I adore learning languages, and have tried learning the basics of a ridiculous number of them, and I've found the Romance languages come much slower than the Germanic ones. I had a small benefit from living in a Spanish-heavy area, so I hear it constantly and did well in classes. But English is Germanic, and luckily a lot of history programs I've looked into allow German. I'm about to go into my third semester of German, and it's wonderful because a lot of the vocabulary is literally English with a German accent. 

 

So yeah, try a different language (or several!). Whatever the area of history you're interested in, you'll probably learn that language better just because of your interest level. I do really well with German because I adore speaking it and reading it (I often find myself reading it out loud just because I love hearing it -- that's when I decided I needed to minor in it).