China Law Blog

Learning mandarin isn't bad, but unless you are permanently living in the NE or Beijing, you WILL also need to learn the local dialect/language or you will always be on the outside looking in. Locals around China, even local officials, pretty much always use their local dialect.

Heck, last time I was on the Guangzhou subway there were two languages for the PA system: cantonese and english.

And this topic has been talked to death.

NH:

Learning Mandarin would be just fine, don't bother about the dialects, believe me. Once you have come to the point that you are able to speak and understand Mandarin, you realize that you are in the same boat as most Chinese, that is, you don't expect that you will understand everything said around you. Being on the outside looking in is the permanent state of affairs for most people living in China, be they Chinese or not.

I found the Economist article refreshing in terms of cutting through the hype about learning Mandarin. Let's face it, English schoolkids should master French, Americans should learn Spanish, everybody else should learn English. It would be nice to have Mandarin available to those who are passionate about it, but as a matter of allocating scarce educational resources I have to agree with them that it is a waste.

I agree with the Economist article. As a foreigner you have to make it a pretty lifelong commitment for it to do any good.

That's not to say that a Brit/American/ whatever with high Mandarin fluency isn't insanely valuable. Far from it. But "high fluency" in Mandarin is insanely hard to accomplish without enormous investment, and in the meantime, Western companies have a huge pool of Chinese ethnics they can tap instead.

That kind of thing is impossible to evaluate empirically, but I agree with the Economist.

Hope I don't get kicked outta here for this...but somewhere in this debate, I see a valuable role for professional English/Chinese interpreters like myself.

As a fact, unless you are extremely talented with langauges to use Chinese in business efficiently you would have to study full time for two years, and live in China.

The vast majority can study Chinese for years at their home land but once in Chinese it's not that usable.

Now THIS is the FAD: the illusion that people can study Chinese in their home country in just a few years.

My suggestion: don't bother unless you are committing several years including living in China.

Having said this, if you are starting a new business in China, or a newbie looking for an entry job in some small company, Chinese is the way to go.

It's easy to brush aside claims that learning Mandarin is not the best use of one's time (when trying to get a better job or add a skill with a decent payoff) when your not the person who has put in the years necessary to really learn the language.

Ask Mandarin students who have lived in China for at least a couple of years how useful the language is in getting a better paying job than they could back home - you might be more than a little surprised.

In the first year of Chinese at my University, there were 60+ students - by the time fourth year rolled around, this 60+ had shrunk to 5+.

There were 4 students studied 4+ years of Mandarin before coming to China on the same teaching program I did. Two of them left out of frustration with the place and the language within one year. The other one took a job as a manager at a foreign hotel for 8K RMB / month before moving on up (and her Mandarin was absolutely fantastic).

There are plenty of reasons to learn Mandarin, but as a monetizable skill it doesn't rank very high - the comment about having to take a huge pay cut just to (not) use Mandarin in your job as a fresh graduate is spot on.

I wrote an article at the link in my name about just this a couple of weeks ago.

Well, obviously, if you have no intention of ever getting involved in China in any way, then learning Mandarin is a waste of time. If, on the other hand, you (as an individual, company/organistation, or country) do intend to get involved with China then Mandarin skills are obviously going to be needed. It strikes me as being utterly absurd to even stress otherwise, and the extra stresses and hassles my non-Mandarin-speaking colleagues face in every aspect of their lives (including professionally, even though they're English teachers) is proof enough (for me, at least).

I agree with this article totally. I have been saying the same thing for years. Believe me, I have been studying Chinese for 12 years and I have a job in the US as a translator, and I envy my classmates who studied law, engineering, IT, or computer programming who make more than me, yet who probably didn't work quite as hard as me or go through nearly as much personal hardship. Let's face facts, from an economic perspective, learning Chinese is not worth the time it takes. For somebody who learns it from scratch it takes too long, I studied it for 10 years before I ever got a job using it, because I started it in High School. There will always be far more Chinese people that know English and they will be more than sufficient to meet the needs which I predict will go down. Chinese people don't like to hire foreigners that speak Chinese. Especially if their Chinese is better than their employers English. In the future a lot of translation will be done with computers. The translation that cannot be done with computers will at least be significantly sped up by machine aids. China's power has no direct relation to the value of its language. How valuable is it to know Hindi? And while China is the country everyone is paying attention to right now, there are other rising powers, like India, Brazil, and Russia. Not to mention the fact that there's no reason that China is guaranteed to continue growing at the same rate for ever. I'm learning Vietnamese now...

I suspect that what happened to the study of Japanese in the early 90s will happen to the study of Chinese in a few years. When these languages are taught fast enough to allow a student to read a newspaper "well" in four years, in my experience over 90% drop out. When taught slow enough to allow most students to survive, nobody learns the 3,500 or so characters needed to be considered barely literate. Thus Chinese will be taught slowly enough to make everybody happy, and in time will be dropped entirely because learning half of a language is not very useful. Whether it is useful or not, the Economist is right when it suggests that few Westerners are going to learn this language. Truth be told, the Chinese themselves aren't doing a very good job of learning their own language nowadays either. As far as I'm concerned, that's the real scandal.

If one plans to, or doing it already, live in China, by all means, learn the local language. Mandarin would be the easiest to learn among various other dialects, and will give you a very good foundation for other dialects.

But if you live outside of China, and do not have opportunity to practise your language skills, it is extremely difficult to keep your skills, unless Chinese is your mother tongue. You will spend a lot of time, a lot of effort, and still loose the skill very quickly, and will have very little results to show for your effort.

I strongly disagree with the article. It strikes me as ignorant and cynical, two words that I rarely associate with the Economist. A significant investment is indeed required to become functionally literate in the Chinese language, but I suspect if more Mandarin students spent three years straight cramming characters with the same dedication as an intrepid law student, we would find ourselves surrounded with Jim Browns and Da Shans. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

Part of the reason we're hearing the "it's too hard so why bother" dirge is because professional-level Chinese skills are an ability that has only recently become useful in general business. There just hasn't been enough time to perfect teaching protocols, and more importantly, for lucrative careers to develop that would attract dedicated students. Just think for a moment how long the legal profession has been around and how the institution of law has developed during that time. The same goes for engineering and medicine. I predict that in 15-20 years, Mandarin skills in the business world will be as important as Spanish fluency is for doing business in California.

As a Chinese to English translator, I do sympathize with my fellow early adopters in that finding a career is not easy as there are no big firms eager to hand over a fat paycheck like what one sees in the legal profession. Instead, you have to find your niche, work hard and keep your head up, as they say.

Also, Conycatcher: machine translation is a joke. Translation performed by a non-native speaker into his or her non-native language is a joke, just go to Engrish.com for all the linguistic trainwrecks that can lead to. Translation software is helpful, but won't do the job by itself and never will. Good, specialized translators will always be in demand. Engineers didn't become obsolete with computer assisted design and drafting software did they? As far as I know, no lawyers were put out on the street because of Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw. New tools and technology just make us more productive.

It really depends on your profession, I guess.

If your work is related to purchasing, manufacturing or management, then all you need to know is how to order in restaurants and say "Xie Xie." Of course, knowing some Chinese can only help at work.

If you are in sales or marketing, then understanding the language is a must. Without the understanding of a language, there is no way you can understand the culture. Without the understanding of a culture, there is no way for you to know what, where and how to sell.

If you are a scholar in Chinese-related studies, then that goes without saying, mastering Chinese in a must.

If you call yourself a China expert, then not only you have to master the Chinese languages, but also be able to think like a Chinese.

In addition to my last comment:

If you are a journalist stationed in China, then you must be able to read Chinese proficiently and speak fluently. Otherwise, all the information you have is second hand information, I would take what you write with a grain of salt.

I too believe learning Mandarin for the average expats is overrated and unnecessary. If you are doing business with the Chinese, there are plenty of English-speaking Chinese that you can work with. Most of the expats I know hardly speak any Mandarin and most are disgruntled (I doubt learning Mandarin would help). You are here for the short term, you are here to make money anyway, who is to say China is the place to be in the future? What, you are going to learn Hindi/Gujarati/Punjabi/Kananda/Tamil and bunch of other Indian languages, plus Russian, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Albanian etc. because that's where the future is? Good luck. Stick to English.

If you came to China for reasons that are nor related to making money (actually fascinated with the country and its culture and history etc.), then by all means.

Glen, your rebuttal to Conycatcher saved me a lot of time. Thanks.

I like Will's comments, too. It depends on what you want out of China and it's not a choice between none or all the way.

It's also possible to say this, for the same effort that would be required of you (western) to know Mandarin fluently, you can learn two or three European languages, or do some graduate degree including an MBA. Those that study full time for 4 years, would mean at least 4 hours a day in class and than a few hours more daily aferwards, and they would have to keep practicing or they would lose it and thus become unusable.

I would echo Will's comments 100%. I am one of those people who stuck with Chinese (only 2 or 3 people out of 40 or so from my first-year college Chinese class are still involved with China), and I have gotten each of my last 3 jobs either entirely or partially because I speak Chinese, and the most recent of those jobs is based in the U.S.

While the Economist article may be correct in that for most people, studying Chinese does not amount to fluency or help career trajectory, to assert that studying Chinese is a waste of time because it is difficult is ludicrous. Those who put in the time to learn Chinese will be rewarded, whether it is through a better job and more money or the less tangible benefit of operating in China on a day-to-day basis, connecting with the Chinese people and culture.

I would guess that people who study Chinese casually do not have visions of grandeur about their Chinese studies; they are just in it for the adventure of spending some time abroad. Like Spanish and French before it, Chinese is now an accessible language to study and study programs there are popular. Chinese is by no means easy, but it is accessible, because dozens of universities have programs and China is still cheap compared to the Western world. Will most of these revelers become China scholars? No. But for those that stick with it, studying Chinese will be worthwhile.

Two random points: I suspect this article was prompted by ex-UK prime minister Tony Blair's endless dropping into conversations on his recent China/HK trip of the fact that one of his sons is learning Mandarin; and (2) The Economist's previous editor was a Japanese speaker, so there might be a bit of history there.

Conycatcher: Anyone who studies Mandarin looking at it as a job source and then has the nerve to say he/she was disappointed with it for that reason is entitled to no sympathy. You obviously got into it not for the enjoyment or beauty of it, and now you are paying the price, so to speak. Jim Brown, Handan, Glen Wilkins and so many others, including Steve Dickinson, and myself, find Mandarin a lifelong fascination and a gateway to another world. So it's not bringing you as many greenbacks as your cool friends tell you they make in law or business? Tough luck. If you don't ENJOY it, you shouldn't be doing it anyway. (Have you stopped studying English because it didn't pay off?) And now you are studying Vietnamese because you see some potential $$ in it? You need to rethink a few things, buddy.

Your other comments are also inaccurate, if not baseless. As a Caucasian lawyer fluent in Mandarin, I've never found Chinese clients unwilling to retain me because I was a white man speaking decent Mandarin. If anything, they retain me for litigation precisely because they obtain the advantage of being able to communicate with ease with me in Mandarin but have a white face in front of a (generally) white judge, which they think is a more effective presentation. I will not comment on whether I agree about that, however, they receive some psychological comfort. And, when judges see me speaking Mandarin to my clients, something a little magical happens in the courtroom, and believe me, judges don't impress easily.

I actually agree with pfeffer (a hush falls over the blogosphere) because language and cultural skills around the world are too specialized for global executives and high level engineers, sales people, etc to know. MNCs, at least in my field, are starting to hire "cultural anthropologists" to handle cultural awareness and language issues to assist higher level people in every company.

For international country managers, being culturally fluent is more important that linguistically fluent because if you know the language but not fully culturally fluent means you can fully insult locals by misusing your language skills (and I'll use my own lesson I learned: " 呸 " or "pei" is never used in a joking manner, unlike telling a good friend "ah, f you!".

And english will still rule, mandarin will always be China specific. India speaks english.

nanheyangrouchuan, yes. How many times have we seen fluent (not a compliment) speakers shoot themselves with an untoward remark. Call it the loose cannon syndrome. You see it with Chinese speakers of English as well.

Part of learning a language is to ascertain, without thinking too much about it, just what a local with savoir faire would say in a given situation to prompt a desirable outcome.

Pure academic interest, seasoned with many years living among Chinese, is the best way to learn. And if it leads to employment, that has as much to do with non-language related issues. Practical skills have always been needed as well if one is hoping to cop a gig.

I started learning before Hua Guo Feng was a household name (he isn't?) and haven't stopped yet. But it's the pith, the fun, the lens on alternate reality that keeps me going.

I've invested a considerable part of my life in learning Mandarin, and I do not regret it as it has enabled me to think in new ways and, thus, has contributed to my development as a free individual.

I would not advise anyone to study Chinese as a way to enhance his/her relative value as a "commodity". To study Mandarin for purely economic reasons doesn't make sense as there are many Chinese whose English is quite good and the cost of Chinese labor is very low.

Having said that, I believe that the US desperately needs to invest quite heavily in developing its own resource of bi-cultural, bi-lingual talent for national security reasons. Although it may make sense to hire Chinese for business reasons, it is absurd to hire Chinese to undertake research and analysis on China. It's a bit like hiring Iraqis to tell us about Iraq, which I'm afraid is what we've been doing in the Middle East. If you don't understand the language and the culture, then you're blind.

Sun Zi in "The Art of War" said: "Know the enemy; Know Yourself. If you know the enemy and yourself, then you'll win every time. Know yourself, but not your enemy, then you'll win some and lose some. Know neither yourself, nor the enemy, then you'll lose every time."

It seems that everyone that is arguing for the value of Chinese is just reinforcing the points in the Economist: It takes years to learn the language, years more to understand the culture well, and years to learn a complimentary skill. For some, this is a good choice they won't regret. But for the majority of people looking at whether or not to study Mandarin, the idea of opportunity cost and the effort (add in personality to that too) needed to really master the language and culture is quite large. Perhaps even huge.

Glen says:

As a Chinese to English translator, I do sympathize with my fellow early adopters in that finding a career is not easy as there are no big firms eager to hand over a fat paycheck like what one sees in the legal profession. Instead, you have to find your niche, work hard and keep your head up, as they say.

So it seems the points the economist article makes are spot on: It is a huge opportunity cost to study Mandarin, something only a handful of people will see through to the end, and probably more selective (in terms of weeding out those who start out on the path of learning Chinese) than quite a few other more marketable skills.

As a matter of time investment, didn't one of the New York Times bureau chiefs manage to pick up passable Chinese in a 6 months intensive program at Oxford?

It's inherently problematic to consider the value of learning Mandarin from a purely commercial/marketing perspective since, in most cases, the commercial, business-oriented extroverted (Carl Jung's term), marketing personality (Fromm's term) is unlikely to be the kind of personality that would commit to the language or benefit from it in any meaningful sense.

The extroverted, marketing personality which determines the value of knowledge according to its marketability (which may be a desirable trait in the commercial world) is not really the kind of person that you want to learn the language or analyze China since the extrovert, marketing personality tends to look at the world in a very superficial, simplistic way. One would want an introverted, productive personality that tends to look at the world in different, complex ways.

An extrovert, marketing personality probably wouldn't benefit from the considerable effort required to learn Chinese and would likely drop out early as he/she would not see the immediate superficial monetary benefit from the effort.

I think that a problem that the US now has is that many people in the US make judgments from a narrow, superficial commercial perspective. I have the greatest respect for business people (don't get me wrong), but their way of thinking is sometimes simplistic, and, therefore, terribly inadequate for analyzing complex issues. Plato's Republic (the PRC is also a Republic) was composed of 3 classes: the Guardians; Auxillaries (soldiers); and Workers (businessmen and laborers). Plato defined Justice as each class minding its own business and not encroaching on the business of the other classes. The Chinese would consider it foolhardy to let businessmen run things, which is the domain of the Guardians. The Chinese tend to see the value in learning other languages not just from a purely economic perspective, but also from a strategic perspective. If one controls the language, then one controls communication. If one controls communication, then....

Mr. Blayney,

I'm not sure how modern China matches up with classical Greek society, but that's an interesting way of looking at it. Communists like to throw the word "republic" around with reckless abandon, i.e. i'm not certain how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upholds republican or democratic values aside from providing a fancy sounding name. I agree with the introvert/extrovert idea though, all of my colleagues who use Chinese at a very high level are introverted to one degree or another. The only exception are my interpreter friends, and it takes a rare breed to be successful at that challenging profession.

Jeremy: my point was not that the Economist was wrong, but rather that it was cynical and short-sighted. Chinese does take an incredible investment but it is not a waste of time. As trade and legal relationships deepen between the English speaking world and the PRC, Mandarin speakers, readers and writers will be in high demand. Chinese people functioning at a non-native level in English will be in demand too but would you want them translating your contract, marketing materials or medical records into English? Perhaps you would like a refreshing can of "bite the wax tadpole" or maybe a Pepsi, which can bring your ancestors back from the dead, so I'm told.

Glen,

Just for the record, Plato's Republic (notwithstanding its name) was not a Republic as we may think of it. Plato's Republic was a slave society modelled on the Greek city state of Sparta. Sparta was in many ways the cointerpoint to Athens. Plato was deeply embittered by what the leaders of Athens did to his teacher Socrates (i.e., they executed Socrates for his free thinking. The specific charge was "corrupting the youth of Athens.") In reaction, Plato created his Republic to cure what he thought were the deficiencies of democracy.

To clarify my point above, I have the greatest respect for businessmen and The Market. My general point is that one doesn't want to confuse commerce and ethics. What is "value" from a commercial perspective is not spiritual value. Thus, it is absurd to judge the value of a particular individual or body of knowledge (such as Mandarin) simply based upon its relative value in the marketplace. This may seem like a minor point, but it is extremely important since at Auschwitz intellectuals were murdered because they were not considered materially useful. Material value is NOT spiritual value. People are NOT commodities. I find it very disturbing that prominent publications such as The Economist, and others in positions of leadership do not see the distinction.

Thank you.

I think the poster's assertion that "there are jobs to be had" with knowledge of Mandarin, while true, would be better supported with a link to an article on someone who is NOT clearly a language genius and perhaps one-of-a-kind (and, I may add with some pride, who got his BA at the same college as myself =)). Very few people can aspire to that kind of job.

If you are learning Chinese for career reasons, it is a complete waste of time. You would never use Chinese in a business situation, especially if your Chinese were good. That's just idiotic. The best move would be to pretend that you spoke no Chinese at all and conduct all business in English. This gives you a huge advantage.

On the other hand, you could always study Chinese for three years and attempt to impress the locals with your "amazing, fluent" Chinese and make a complete ass of yourself.

Same logic applies with women. Some people are under the illusion that speaking Chinese gives you some sort of advantage with women in China, when, on the contrary, it puts you at a huge disadvantage. Plenty of girls are looking for a nice foreign rube who doesn't have a clue about China. A few people out there will know what I mean...

Foreigners speaking Chinese have a definite entertainment/performing-monkey value to most Chinese, so if you think that being a performing monkey would help your career (and who knows? it might) then by all means speak Chinese in business situations. Otherwise, I'd put most of your efforts into listening comprehension and reading skills and completely conceal the fact that you speak Chinese (when conducting business, etc.). My two cents...

I disagree with some of the faux-sophisticated cynicism here, especially that of 88. The "performing monkey" slur is the mark of a shallow understanding about not just Chinese society but human relationships. The fact is that learning to speak a language, any language, endears you to the speakers of that language. I have made real friendships with Chinese people by virtue of my command of the language that would have been otherwise inaccessible to me. It is an advantage. I have met Chinese randomly in the US and kept in touch with them most improbably by virtue of speaking Chinese. I guarantee you that they would not care about some random non-Chinese speaker. So, speaking Chinese has two values: one is the practical ability to communicate in the language and understand nuances that otherwise escape non-Chinese. The other, arguably more valuable given that much of the educated class in China speaks English, is of the value in signaling that you are interested in Chinese culture. People respond positively to this sort of thing.

The sad fact is that much of the cynicism about speaking Chinese is due to the fact that study of the Chinese language seems to attract anti-social types who have little appreciation for the nuances of human relationships. So of course they play the reducto ad absurdum game of saying that foreign speakers of Chinese are forever "performing monkeys." I suppose the brave Chinese immigrants to the United States were just as futile in their efforts to succeed in America, were they, oh infinitely knowledgeable and sophisticated cynics?

As far as the professional path, I agree. Anyone thinking of studying Chinese to advance their career is far better off punching a conventional ticket. An indictment of a flawed system, perhaps.

@Bart,

>>As far as the professional path, I agree.

So we agree then.

You'll have to point out the part where I said anything denigrating learning Chinese in general in order to make deep friendships, to understand subtleties, or to endear yourself to speakers of that language (although that entirely depends on the context). I believe we were discussing learning Chinese as a means of furthering one's career. And if you don't realize that foreigners speaking Chinese are viewed as curiosities and 'performing monkeys' -- especially in a professional context -- in the eyes of many Chinese, then you may question my "anti-social tendencies" all you want -- I question your knowledge of China.

88: One is not a performing monkey when, but for knowing and using his Mandarin, he accomplishes what could not otherwise have been accomplished, such as taking an interpreter apart at a deposition or other meeting/hearing.

As far as the comment about women, you seem to limit yourself to those few Chinese women who speak English and lead you by the nose. With half of 1.4 billion as women, using Chinese may be the only way to exploit the mass market, in whatever sense you may wish to consider "exploit."

I'm coming at this from an academic angle, but knowledge of Chinese (defined broadly) is essential for non-Chinese to do research on economics, anthropology, political science, not to mention history. While some would argue (incorrectly) on the value of such research, and others might question (equally falsely) whether foreigners ought be researching such topics in China at all, the truth is that quite a lot of important academic research has been and continues to be done on China by foreign specialists, very little of which would have been done half as well without adequate study of the language. I understand this represents a niche, but it's a useful niche.

I might also add that in an age of increasing, shall we say, global competition, the need for well-trained speakers and readers of Mandarin in national security, diplomatic, and intelligence bureaus deserves mention.

Jeremiah: Jiu shi ma!!

I think that the article in the Economist cuts to the chase very well. I live in Beijing and have been here five years. I can speak conversational Chinese at an intermediate level. To quantify that I feel a few months of study and I would pass the HSK level 6 – albeit with a little effort.

Learning Chinese as the previous posts have said for economic reasons is not realistic. Learning Chinese for personal development is great if you have the time and the interest. I am proud of the fact that I can speak a little Chinese – I feel it has been an accomplishment. But I would not idly recommend it to others.

Chinese syntax is not so complicated, but usage and semantics are a problem and the difference between written and spoken Chinese is significant. Accents are also an inconvenience when chatting with people from other provinces – that is assuming they are speaking Mandarin. Dialects are more like other languages and the vast majority of Northern Chinese cannot understand the southerners if they are speaking their “own language”. Same of course east to west – it’s a big diverse country.

“Fluency” is an often used word, but I think people that use it should define it. In my view it is over used in the Chinese context – few westerners can hope to attain it.

The article was on the mark regarding the need or demand for Chinese speaking foreigners – the market wants skills not Chinese-English bi-linguists – it already has millions of those.

As for the comments that someone made about anecdotal evidence – I agree. But the problem is that there are a lot of misleading stats on Chinese language learners. There may be millions of people signing up for introductory courses – but how many will attain a level of proficiency that will let them converse in Chinese in a free manner – a very small percentage I suggest. Keep an eye on the numbers of non Asians that are passing HSK Level 6 and that will give you a feeling (although, I acknowledge many proficient in Chinese don’t bother with the exam).

As a final note – there are always the really clever people that have amazing skills and can acquire languages quickly (these include all small children living in China), but for the average learner or parent thinking of encouraging their children to learn Chinese I suggest they don’t rush in. The article in the Economist is realistic and also is also a balancing voice against all those who ignorantly advocate learning Chinese without pointing realistically the efforts and rewards.

I hope that someone with do a detailed and verifiable analysis of learning Chinese – so that evidence to support both views can be put on the table. Until that time these posts are making a valuable contribution.

The Economist is right. I'm a 31 year old woman who's just started learning Mandarin. I'm a journalist. This will never, ever help my career. By the end of the year, my teacher says, I should be able to take a taxi, order some lunch, leave a basic voice message for a business contact, haggle at street stalls and hold a very basic conversation about myself with a Chinese speaker. Gah! I have friends who learned Spanish in six months. And by the time I do master Mandarin with some fluency, it'll be high time I had my first child.

Learning the basics of this language is a very enjoyable hobby. And through the classes, I've picked up a lot of important tips about Chinese culture which are undoubtedly helping me in business meetings. But learning Mandarin as a way to improve your job prospects? Unless you are very young and work in a technical field that does not require perfect verbal or written communication, forget it. The Economist's article seems badly researched in that they did not source most of their data. But the key to a good story is telling the story, and only the writer and editor need to be sure of the sources, data or otherwise.

I became fluent in Chinese after studying it for a combined period of 11 months by taking the serious immersion programs - Middlebury, Princeton, and the ICLP program. By fluent I mean I can talk on anything of interest, and read anything of interest except ancient Chinese texts. (I did recently struggle through the "Four Lessons of Liaofan") I read a lot of the intellectual periodicals and great modern literary works. I have no communication difficulty and Chinese immigrants who've been here 15 years, and some that say they moved here at 15, and have been here 10 years, frequently complain my Chinese is better than their English. I have no communication problems, but don't put me down as an interpreter. I can whiz through Chinese legal textbooks, unless they include evil ancient Chinese. I speak with a native-sounding accent, I'm asked all the time if I'm Chinese when I use mandarin (I'm WHITE!), and native speakers don't notice mistakes on my part.

I readily admit I don't know everything, but according to most definitions of 'fluent', I've reached it in study time that amounts to around 11 months. There is no definition for 'native speaker', but I am sure it's a long way away.

Why the 2 year figure?

Chinese is taught incompetently at quite a lot of institutions. Chinese students sign up, and they fail to learn anything. Hence the corrupt, price-gouging universities in China, eager to suck in student money, have come up with these 2-year programs that will fail to bring you to fluency.

I am sure a competent, serious program can bring a student to fluency in about a year. The problem is that most people won't enroll in these programs, or do their research on learning Chinese.

Even these programs seem to have problems. I used a communicative approach to learning Chinese at Middlebury's first year Chinese, and the instructor reported I'd made what is usually expected to be two years of progress - and she considered my language aptitude 'average'! (meaning: it was 100% approach, 5% intelligence) I have found an incredible amount of firm resistance to learning Chinese communicatively among both students and teachers. Surprisingly, it's the students who cling more to outworn, stone-age language pedagogy.

As for older posters who learned Chinese before the 2000s, I think they deserve a huge pat on the back. Learning Chinese used to be absurdly difficult; there were no reliable dictionaries, teachers were post-cultural revolution kiddies. It would take two hours for an intermediate student to read a page of Lu Xun (it took me 8 minutes/page at that point).

I think the difficulty of learning Chinese is wildly exaggerated. The spoken language, after learning tones, is actually remarkably easy. The characters, which now often reportedly 70% of a student's time (1.4 years!) could be taught in 2 months, as a pedagogical study found with adult learners.

Does Chinese take an ultra-investment? No.

Should you learn it solely for career goals? No. Learn it because you love the culture, and like the people. Do it for personal reasons. If you're like me, are itching to go back to Asia, and are regarded by half the Chinese community as a friend (worse, Chinese Buddhist Monks here want to hang out with me), then learn the language.

I took a year to learn Chinese and I'll be using it for fifty. Every book I read in the language, every conversation I have, contributes to Chinese. If you aren't doing it because of that personal interest in connection, you'll lose the language. For those who chose it for the right reason, your skills will build up day by day to mastery.

I think the Economist also exaggerates seriously on two points:

1) Suggesting every white-collar worker in China can speak English. Just last year, China Mobile's English service thanked you for adding your "booty", ATM machines ask you if you want "an advice" (receipt), and Chinglish joke sites are everywhere.

2) Suggesting that mandarin take 3 or 4 years to learn up to professional fluency. Perhaps if you enroll in a poor program, you'll make no progress, but in a good program you can expect to get up to fluency much faster.

It does make a good point: don't live abroad just to learn the language. Also, figure out that you'll actually have a use for the language before going into it. Don't spend 5 years in Beijing earning $10,000 a year just to learn it.