Johnson: What is a foreign language worth?

學(xué)習(xí)外語(yǔ)價(jià)值何在?

JOHNSON is a fan of the Freakonomics books and columns. But this week’s podcast makes me wonder if the team of Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt aren’t overstretching themselves a bit. “Is learning a foreign language really worth it?”， asks the headline. A reader writes:

約翰遜是一個(gè)《魔鬼經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)》這本書(shū)和專(zhuān)欄粉絲，但是這周斯蒂芬·杜布納和史蒂芬·萊維特卻讓我感覺(jué)是不是他們探索的有些太深了。 “學(xué)外語(yǔ)到底價(jià)值幾何?”頭版標(biāo)題向讀者提問(wèn)。一位讀者答道：

My oldest daughter is a college freshman, and not only have I paid for her to study Spanish for the last four or more years — they even do it in grade school now! — but her college is requiring her to study EVEN MORE! What on earth is going on? How did it ever get this far? … Or to put it in economics terms, where is the ROI?

“我的大女兒讀大一，我出錢(qián)讓她學(xué)了四年多的西班牙語(yǔ)，但是現(xiàn)在很多孩子從小學(xué)就開(kāi)始學(xué)了!在大學(xué)，我女兒的西語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)更加繁重，這到底是怎么一回事?為什么會(huì)發(fā)展到這種地步?或者換一種方式，用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)用語(yǔ)來(lái)說(shuō)，投資回收率是多少?

To sum up the podcast’s answers, there are pros and cons to language-learning. The pros are that working in a foreign language can make people make better decisions (research Johnson covered here) and that bilingualism helps with executive function in children and dementia in older people (covered here). The cons: one study finds that the earnings bonus for an American who learns a foreign language is just 2%. If you make $30,000 a year, sniffs Mr Dubner, that’s just $600.

簡(jiǎn)單地把播客上的回答做個(gè)總結(jié)，對(duì)于語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)有人贊同有人反對(duì)。贊同者們認(rèn)為學(xué)習(xí)外語(yǔ)能讓人們有更好的選擇，雙語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)可以讓孩子能力更強(qiáng)，減少老年人癡呆的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。反對(duì)者們則認(rèn)為：懂一門(mén)外語(yǔ)的美國(guó)人只比普通美國(guó)人多掙2%的工資而已。杜伯納先生對(duì)此嗤之以鼻，如果你一年掙3萬(wàn)美元，也就多了600美元而已。

But for the sake of provocation, Mr Dubner seems to have low-balled this. He should know the power of lifetime earnings and compound interest. First, instead of $30,000, assume a university graduate, who in America is likelier to use a foreign language than someone without university. The average starting salary is almost $45,000.

對(duì)于這種說(shuō)法，杜伯納先生對(duì)此似乎有些低估了。會(huì)一種語(yǔ)言是終身性的，而且還要考慮到復(fù)利(會(huì)不斷地給我們帶來(lái)利潤(rùn))。首先，除去3萬(wàn)美元的工資不說(shuō)，如果一名大學(xué)生會(huì)外語(yǔ)，那么他的起薪平均可以達(dá)到4.5萬(wàn)美元。

Imagine that our graduate saves her “language bonus”. Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe (a statement dubiously attributed to Einstein, but nonetheless worth committing to memory). Assuming just a 1% real salary increase per year and a 2% average real return over 40 years, a 2% language bonus turns into an extra $67,000 (at 2014 value) in your retirement account. Not bad for a few years of “où est la plume de ma tante?”

想象一下吧，我們的畢業(yè)生有著“語(yǔ)言紅利”。愛(ài)因斯坦說(shuō)過(guò)，復(fù)利是大學(xué)最大的動(dòng)力(不確定這個(gè)理論是不是愛(ài)因斯坦提出的，但是值得我們記住)。假設(shè)每年都會(huì)有1%的漲薪，2%的實(shí)際回報(bào)率，連續(xù)40年。在你退休之后，2%的語(yǔ)言獎(jiǎng)金就會(huì)變成6.7萬(wàn)美元充進(jìn)你的退休賬戶(hù)(按2014的比率來(lái)計(jì)算)。所以，學(xué)幾年西語(yǔ)“où est la plume de ma tante?”(中文：我姨媽的鋼筆去哪了?)也不賴(lài)吧!

Second, Albert Saiz, the MIT economist who calculated the 2% premium, found quite different premiums for different languages: just 1.5% for Spanish, 2.3% for French and 3.8% for German. This translates into big differences in the language account: your Spanish is worth $51,000, but French, $77,000, and German, $128,000. Humans are famously bad at weighting the future against the present, but if you dangled even a post-dated $128,000 cheque in front of the average 14-year-old, Goethe and Schiller would be hotter than Facebook。

第二，麻省理工的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家阿爾伯特·塞茲(Albert Saiz)，在計(jì)算出第二外語(yǔ)可以帶給我們2%的額外收益之外，還發(fā)現(xiàn)不同的語(yǔ)言額外收益是不同的：西班牙語(yǔ)僅1.5%，法語(yǔ)2.3%，德語(yǔ)3.8%。換算成錢(qián)，這份語(yǔ)言賬單上就會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大差異：西班牙語(yǔ)值5.1萬(wàn)美元，法語(yǔ)值7.7萬(wàn)美元，德語(yǔ)12.8萬(wàn)美元。人類(lèi)極不擅于權(quán)衡未來(lái)與現(xiàn)在是出了名的，但如果把一張12.8萬(wàn)美元的支票在一般的14歲小孩面前晃一晃，歌德和席勒將會(huì)比臉譜網(wǎng)更受歡迎。

Why do the languages offer such different returns? It has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of Spanish, of course. The obvious answer is the interplay of supply and demand. This chart reckons that Spanish-speakers account for a bit more of world GDP than German-speakers do. But an important factor is economic openness. Germany is a trade powerhouse, so its language will be more economically valuable for an outsider than the language of a relatively more closed economy。

為什么不同法語(yǔ)言種類(lèi)會(huì)有這樣不同的收益呢?當(dāng)然這與西班牙語(yǔ)本身沒(méi)有關(guān)系。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)這是供需關(guān)系相互作用的結(jié)果。這個(gè)表格說(shuō)明說(shuō)西班牙語(yǔ)的人占世界GDP的比例比說(shuō)德語(yǔ)的人多一點(diǎn)。但一個(gè)很重要的因素是經(jīng)濟(jì)的開(kāi)放度。德國(guó)是貿(mào)易繁榮的國(guó)家，所以相比其他閉塞的國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，第二語(yǔ)言是德語(yǔ)的人將會(huì)有更高的經(jīng)濟(jì)回報(bào)。

But in American context (the one Mr Saiz studied)， the more important factor is probably supply, not demand, of speakers of a given language. Non-Latino Americans might study Spanish because they hear and see so much of it spoken in their country. But that might be the best reason not to study the language, from a purely economic point of view。

A non-native learner of Spanish will have a hard time competing with a fluent native bilingual for a job requiring both languages. Indeed, Mr Saiz found worse returns for Spanish study in states with a larger share of Hispanics. Better to learn a language in high demand, but short supply—one reason, no doubt, ambitious American parents are steering their children towards Mandarin. The drop-off in recent years in the American study of German might be another reason for young people to hit the Bücher。

但美國(guó)的情況(塞茲先生的研究的對(duì)象)，對(duì)特定語(yǔ)言來(lái)說(shuō)更重要的可能是供應(yīng)而非需求。非拉丁美洲的美國(guó)人可能會(huì)學(xué)西班牙語(yǔ)，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诒緡?guó)聽(tīng)到看到太多的人使用西班牙語(yǔ)。但從純粹的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度來(lái)說(shuō)，那也許會(huì)成為不學(xué)習(xí)這種語(yǔ)言的最好理由。在求職中一個(gè)母語(yǔ)非西班牙語(yǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)者與流利使用本國(guó)語(yǔ)的雙語(yǔ)人才競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，勝算并不大。確實(shí)，塞茲先生發(fā)現(xiàn)一位西語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者在西班牙裔聚集地似乎占不到什么便宜。最好學(xué)一門(mén)高需求的語(yǔ)言，但低供應(yīng)的語(yǔ)言，有野心的美國(guó)父母正引導(dǎo)孩子學(xué)習(xí)漢語(yǔ)普通話(huà)。近年來(lái)美國(guó)學(xué)習(xí)德語(yǔ)的人越來(lái)越少，這也導(dǎo)致了年輕人越來(lái)越少讀德語(yǔ)書(shū)。

And studies like Mr Saiz’s can only work with the economy the researchers have at hand to study. But of course changes in educational structures can have dynamic effects on entire economies. A list of the richest countries in the world is dominated by open, trade-driven economies. Oil economies aside, the top 10 includes countries where trilingualism is typical, like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Singapore, and small countries like the Scandinavian ones, where English knowledge is excellent。

塞茲先生這樣的研究只適用于研究者周?chē)�的�?jīng)濟(jì)狀況。但當(dāng)然教育結(jié)構(gòu)的變化對(duì)整個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體系有著動(dòng)態(tài)的影響。世界上最富有的國(guó)家都是開(kāi)放、貿(mào)易驅(qū)動(dòng)型的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。除了石油經(jīng)濟(jì)體，排名前十的一些國(guó)家，人們普遍說(shuō)三種語(yǔ)言，像盧森堡、瑞士、新加坡，還有些小國(guó)家像斯堪的納維亞國(guó)家，那里人們的英語(yǔ)水平很高。

There are of course many reasons that such countries are rich. But a willingness to learn about export markets, and their languages, is a plausible candidate. One study, led byJames Foreman-Peck of Cardiff Business School, has estimated that lack of foreign-language proficiency in Britain costs the economy £48 billion ($80 billion)， or 3.5% of GDP, each year. Even if that number is high, the cost of assuming that foreign customers will learn your language, and never bothering to learn theirs, is certainly a lot greater than zero. So if Mr Saiz had run his language-premium study against a parallel-universe America, in which the last half-century had been a golden age of language-learning, he might have found a bigger foreign-language bonus (and a bigger GDP pie to divide) in that more open and export-oriented fantasy America. And of course greater investment in foreign-language teaching would have other dynamic effects: more and better teachers and materials, plus a cultural premium on multilingualism, means more people will actually master a language, rather than wasting several years never getting past la plume de ma tante, as happens in Britain and America。

當(dāng)然這些國(guó)家富有有很多原因。但是愿意學(xué)習(xí)出口市場(chǎng)和他們的語(yǔ)言，在此有一席之地毋庸置疑。加迪夫商業(yè)學(xué)院的詹姆斯·福爾曼·佩克領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了一項(xiàng)研究，估算出英國(guó)每年因缺少外語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)人才花費(fèi)了480億英鎊，占GDP3.5%。雖然這個(gè)數(shù)字巨大，但如果外國(guó)客戶(hù)會(huì)學(xué)習(xí)你的語(yǔ)言，無(wú)需勞煩你去學(xué)習(xí)他們的語(yǔ)言，這種做法會(huì)付出更大的代價(jià)。所以如果塞茲先生在過(guò)去半個(gè)世紀(jì)語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)的黃金時(shí)代做語(yǔ)言紅利研究，并把他現(xiàn)在的研究與平行世界的美國(guó)對(duì)比，他可能會(huì)在那個(gè)更為開(kāi)放、出口導(dǎo)向型的幻境美國(guó)發(fā)現(xiàn)一個(gè)更大外語(yǔ)紅利(并且占GDP比重更大)。當(dāng)然，更多的外語(yǔ)教學(xué)投資會(huì)帶來(lái)其他的動(dòng)態(tài)影響：更多更好的教師和材料以及多語(yǔ)言使用帶來(lái)的文化紅利，這意味著更多的人會(huì)精通一門(mén)語(yǔ)言，而不是浪費(fèi)多年仍然學(xué)不會(huì)“我姨媽的鋼筆在哪”，就像英國(guó)和美國(guó)一樣。

To be sure, everything has an opportunity cost. An hour spent learning French is an hour spent not learning something else. But it isn’t hard to think of school subjects that provide less return—economically, anyway—than a foreign language. What is the return on investment for history, literature or art? Of course schools are intended to do more than create little GDP-producing machines. (And there are also great non-economic benefits to learning a foreign language。) But if it is GDP you’re after, the world isn’t learning English as fast as some people think. One optimistic estimate is that half the world’s people might speak English by 2050. That leaves billions who will not, and billions of others who remain happier (and more willing to spend money) in their own language。

當(dāng)然，每件事物都有機(jī)會(huì)成本�；ㄒ恍�時(shí)學(xué)法語(yǔ)就是浪費(fèi)一小時(shí)沒(méi)有學(xué)其他技能。但是，很難想到學(xué)校里哪個(gè)學(xué)科比英語(yǔ)經(jīng)濟(jì)回報(bào)更低。歷史、文學(xué)或藝術(shù)的投資回報(bào)是什么?當(dāng)然學(xué)校不只是想創(chuàng)造GDP生產(chǎn)機(jī)。(學(xué)習(xí)外語(yǔ)有許多非經(jīng)濟(jì)方面的好處)但如果你追求的是GDP，全球人學(xué)英語(yǔ)的速度并不像一些人想的那樣快。樂(lè)觀估計(jì)，到2050年世界上可能有一半的人會(huì)說(shuō)英語(yǔ)。還剩下數(shù)十億的人們不會(huì)說(shuō)英語(yǔ)，以及數(shù)十億更快樂(lè)地說(shuō)著(也更愿意投資)自己語(yǔ)言的人。