PhD foreign language reading requirement

[ltr317]

I'm applying to several American History PhD programs for next year.  My minor field of interest is Modern Britain, but since none of the programs are so narrowly focused, I will have to choose Modern Europe and pick at least one foreign language.  I'm not sure whether I should take a French or Spanish reading course to prepare for the foreign language translation.  I just can't decide.  Do any of you have a suggestion?  

[nhhistorynut]

With British history, out of those two, I'd probably just choose French. But that's just my 2 cents. You might also consider German.

[cowgirlsdontcry]

What level of proficiency do you need? Any background in either language? Which language has the most scholarship in history (for literature, it's French)? Spanish is a little easier than French. Those are questions you need to ask yourself. Have you looked at the programs and their foreign language requirements? That's important--what if you choose and get admitted to a program that requires two intermediate level foreign languages. Unless you have taken foreign languages in the past or are gifted towards languages naturally, that's a lot to add to your program.

[VAZ]

Haha I kind of envy you. In some fields, you may encounter six different languages in one single archival box. American History is the only language-free field, take it both as a convenience and a disadvantage. Most PhD handbooks write that Americanists can pass the requirement with whatever foreign language they know. I would say that the more languages you master, the wider research opportunities you can embrace. French works perfect. German is the king in all humanities disciplines. Knowing Russian doesn't hurt, especially if you are working on the Cold War / international relations. How about Welsh (in the Victorian Age yes), Irish or Latin (a lot of formal sources in the 19th Century were still written in Latin)? May you also consider Chinese and Modern Hebrew. Really depends on your specific research topic and the connections that you would like to make. Perhaps all of the above.

 Anyways, in my opinion, all North American scholars should avoid anglo-centrism, and all historians regardless of fields should be polyglots,

Edited July 6, 2017 by VAZ

[hungrybear]

From a difficulty stand point, French is definitely easier to read and translate than Spanish. If you were going to have to speak the language, Spanish is easier. 

French would probably more helpful in British history, anyway. 

[cowgirlsdontcry]

12 hours ago, miami421 said:

From a difficulty stand point, French is definitely easier to read and translate than Spanish. If you were going to have to speak the language, Spanish is easier. 

You found French easier to read than Spanish? The verb conjugation in Spanish is much simpler than French, as well as pronoun placement. I was on my 5th semester of French when I began taking Spanish and was amazed at the difference. Ask my French professor about it and she agreed, saying French was like Spanish on steroids. I only took a few semesters of Spanish in order to complete my minor, so did not get to the same level of fluency, but found it much easier to learn after I had struggled with French for so long.

[rising_star]

I'd say it also depends on what your interest in American history is (in terms of topic/region and time period). If you're interested in southwestern history, then Spanish is a good choice. If you're more interested in the colonies or New England, then you may want to study French. There's really not enough information here, OP, for us to advise you.

[hungrybear]

4 hours ago, cowgirlsdontcry said:

You found French easier to read than Spanish? The verb conjugation in Spanish is much simpler than French, as well as pronoun placement. I was on my 5th semester of French when I began taking Spanish and was amazed at the difference. Ask my French professor about it and she agreed, saying French was like Spanish on steroids. I only took a few semesters of Spanish in order to complete my minor, so did not get to the same level of fluency, but found it much easier to learn after I had struggled with French for so long.

Spanish has so many more verb conjugations than French (I'm looking at you, Spanish subjunctive). French uses the subjunctive once in a while, and it hardly ever employs the past subjunctive. Both are very common in Spanish writing and speech. 

Also, French has a much larger vocabulary overlap with English than Spanish. Shoot there are so many "high-level" English words that are common words in French. So for an academic, I think French is much more intuitive.

But each to his own. I was born in Spanish-speaking household, so maybe that plays a role in my opinion. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by miami421

[maelia8]

Most of the Americanists in my program took the exam in Spanish since it meant minimal work (brushing up on what they'd already learned in high school), except for those who had a legitimate need to use another language in their research (for example, 18th and 19th century Western diplomatic history requires some knowledge of French, even if you are an Americanist historian). One person who focuses on Western Canada/Alaska learned Russian, as that's the most useful for studying that region in the early 19th century. Play to your specific interests, or take the simplest way to filling the requirement if you're not sure you need any further languages.

[AP]

On 7/6/2017 at 7:35 PM, ltr317 said:

My minor field of interest is Modern Britain, but since none of the programs are so narrowly focused, I will have to choose Modern Europe and pick at least one foreign language. 

Since you are in the application stage, let me give you a piece of (unsolicited) advice. From this sentence in your post, I gather that you kind of hoped that any program would be in your "minor field"*. In the US, you are trained as a historian of {insert field}. For example, I am a historian of Latin America. My focus is blah bleh blih, but my field is Latin American History. 

There are many reasons for this:

1. When you teach, you'll teach broad-scope courses
2. When you write, you write for a wider audience than your "minor field" (most of the time, at least)
3. When you write, you are using historiography from many "minor fields" besides your own
4. When you collaborate with that other literature, you may position yourself from within a field. For example, I contribute to the history of Latin America (I hope)
5. When you teach and write, you want to be relevant to that wider audience
6. When you apply for grants, the committees are never from your "minor field"
7. When you apply for jobs, you need to be flexible enough to speak to a whole department

So, my advice is: When you write your SOPs, position yourself within the field of Modern Europe. Avoid defining yourself as someone who only cares about their "minor field". It will show that you understand how your field works, the major trends, and the way you can contribute to it. 

* I'm using "" not to criticize your use of minor field, but to use it in the same applicable way you did. 

[VAZ]

1 hour ago, AP said:

When you write your SOPs, position yourself within the field of Modern Europe

@AP If I did not misunderstand, the OP is an Americanist from New York, rather than someone applying to American PhD programs from abroad. He plans to complete a minor field / certificate program (course & language requirement, etc.) and probably take one of the comp exams in Modern Britain, on top of his main field (i.e. American History). Otherwise he has to at least pass two languages rather than one. In addition, I don't think anyone would call his research focus as a "minor field," and plus Modern Britain is big enough to be a legitimate field.  

Edited July 9, 2017 by VAZ

[AP]

1 hour ago, VAZ said:

@AP If I did not misunderstand, the OP is an Americanist from New York, rather than someone applying to American PhD programs from abroad. He plans to complete a minor field / certificate program (course & language requirement, etc.) and probably take one of the comp exams in Modern Britain, on top of his main field (i.e. American History). Otherwise he has to at least pass two languages rather than one. In addition, I don't think anyone would call his research focus as a "minor field," and plus Modern Britain is big enough to be a legitimate field.  

Well, I understood it otherwise based on the sentence I cited from them. Thanks for the explanation though.

In any case, I know Modern Britain is a big field, like Brazilian history or Chinese history. But your PhD is in "Modern European History" or "Latin American History" or "Southeast Asian History" (based on the people that I know, I'm happy to admit exceptions). My whole point was precisely that: to position ourselves within our fields in order to speak to audiences across the disciplinary spectrum. Sometimes this is neglected by some applicants or even present graduate students. I'm guilty of charge and thus I chose to share advice on an issue I am constantly reminded of.

Finally, I used minor field in the sense the OP used it, hence my clarification. I didn't call Modern Britain a minor field, I'm sorry you understood that.

[ltr317]

I would like to thank everyone's advice so far.  Based on what I've read on this thread, I think I will do a French rather than a Spanish reading course for the reason that there is more interaction between Britain and France during the modern era.  I posted the question initially because I have always dreaded taking foreign languages in the past.  I actually took both Spanish and French long ago in college as a requirement and found Spanish easier to learn; but in my current situation, I think after reading your responses French is more relevant at the Ph.D. level for my fields of interest.  Actually, I find studying higher mathematics easier than learning a foreign language mainly because I don't like rote memorization of grammar.  But we must do what we must to achieve our goals.   Thanks again everyone.

Just to clarify for those who asked, my major field in U.S. history is the long nineteenth century, from Independence to the beginning of WWI.    

 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by ltr317

[ltr317]

8 hours ago, VAZ said:

@AP If I did not misunderstand, the OP is an Americanist from New York, rather than someone applying to American PhD programs from abroad. He plans to complete a minor field / certificate program (course & language requirement, etc.) and probably take one of the comp exams in Modern Britain, on top of his main field (i.e. American History). Otherwise he has to at least pass two languages rather than one. In addition, I don't think anyone would call his research focus as a "minor field," and plus Modern Britain is big enough to be a legitimate field.  

Vaz - You are spot on!  I was asking all of you for advice since I dread taking any foreign language, but several of you have been helpful in me choosing French over Spanish, even though I find learning Spanish a little easier if I put my mind to it. 

[VAZ]

21 minutes ago, ltr317 said:

I think I will do a French rather than a Spanish reading course

I just recall that Omeljan Pritsak, a late Harvard historian of my field, once said that "most of the scholarly literature is in English, German, French and Russian texts, but every educated person already knows these languages." I guess I would also add (good) Latin. Reading French is essential for all humanities scholars, and you made a very right decision.

Edited July 10, 2017 by VAZ

[AP]

10 hours ago, ltr317 said:

Vaz - You are spot on!  I was asking all of you for advice since I dread taking any foreign language, but several of you have been helpful in me choosing French over Spanish, even though I find learning Spanish a little easier if I put my mind to it. 

My bad!