They say that in Mandarin (Chinese) there are two thousand most common words, and that if you know these words, you can carry on a normal conversation in 90% of the situations you encounter.
Has anyone heard a similar statistic for the English language, whereby if you know X number of words, you cay carry on a normal conversation in 90% of the situations you encounter?
Thanks
ESL Proficiency/Ability
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Hi Kyle
Unfortunately, I cannot tell anything regarding the Chinese language, because I am not acquainted with it
. However, regarding English, I believe that this statement is fundamentally incorrect. Statistically, it may be right. About 2000 or 3000 of most common English words do account for the great majority of words in any written and especially spoken text.
However, this DOES NOT mean that it is enough to know these 3000 most common words (and even all the rules of grammar too, for that matter) in order to understand English. This is just not what it takes! The lexicon of English consists of many prefabricated but arbitrary lexical phrases which may be made of those 3000 or so "most common words". For example, it's not enough just to learn the most common English words like "out", "set", "make", "do", "get" etc. What matters is how many lexical phrases can you make out of those "most common words" (e.g. "to make out", "to get down to", "to set out","to do away with", "to make up for", "to be done for" etc.) These are just a few examples of phrasal verbs, let alone idioms and other fixed expressions - there are myriads of them in English!
To say that "you don't need to know many English words in order to speak English", is as unhelpful as to say "you don't need to know many English sounds in order to speak English". English, like other languages, is made of sounds, and there are only 40 or so of them; but the knowledge of sounds is in no way to be equated with the knowledge of English! To know English does not mean to know the sounds or the ways to combine them, but to know the myriads of combinations of those sounds. Not, notice, the combinations which MAY be made from those sounds, but actual combinations which exist. The sounds are a possible way of breaking the language DOWN, not building it UP. We can break language into sounds, morphemes, words, sentences, etc., but words are no more the basic units out of which English is "built" than sounds, letters or morphemes. Words are simply one possible analytical tool, admittedly one which proves exceptionally useful for many purposes. But words are in no way the basic components.
So, to conclude, one will NOT learn to understand or to speak English well, if one just learns all those 3000 or so "most common words" and even if one learns all the English grammar rules for that matter. I have experienced it first-hand. This may be true in the case of "The Basic English", but that's already another story. As far as I'm concerned, "Basic English" is not a real English - it's just a weird semi-language, a kind of pidgin type of thing. However, if one is interested in real English, one needs to develop a LARGE vocabulary by learning lots of words as as well as word combinations. There is no way around it
I hope this makes sense and sorry if I was too heavy at times
V.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell anything regarding the Chinese language, because I am not acquainted with it
. However, regarding English, I believe that this statement is fundamentally incorrect. Statistically, it may be right. About 2000 or 3000 of most common English words do account for the great majority of words in any written and especially spoken text. However, this DOES NOT mean that it is enough to know these 3000 most common words (and even all the rules of grammar too, for that matter) in order to understand English. This is just not what it takes! The lexicon of English consists of many prefabricated but arbitrary lexical phrases which may be made of those 3000 or so "most common words". For example, it's not enough just to learn the most common English words like "out", "set", "make", "do", "get" etc. What matters is how many lexical phrases can you make out of those "most common words" (e.g. "to make out", "to get down to", "to set out","to do away with", "to make up for", "to be done for" etc.) These are just a few examples of phrasal verbs, let alone idioms and other fixed expressions - there are myriads of them in English!
To say that "you don't need to know many English words in order to speak English", is as unhelpful as to say "you don't need to know many English sounds in order to speak English". English, like other languages, is made of sounds, and there are only 40 or so of them; but the knowledge of sounds is in no way to be equated with the knowledge of English! To know English does not mean to know the sounds or the ways to combine them, but to know the myriads of combinations of those sounds. Not, notice, the combinations which MAY be made from those sounds, but actual combinations which exist. The sounds are a possible way of breaking the language DOWN, not building it UP. We can break language into sounds, morphemes, words, sentences, etc., but words are no more the basic units out of which English is "built" than sounds, letters or morphemes. Words are simply one possible analytical tool, admittedly one which proves exceptionally useful for many purposes. But words are in no way the basic components.
So, to conclude, one will NOT learn to understand or to speak English well, if one just learns all those 3000 or so "most common words" and even if one learns all the English grammar rules for that matter. I have experienced it first-hand. This may be true in the case of "The Basic English", but that's already another story. As far as I'm concerned, "Basic English" is not a real English - it's just a weird semi-language, a kind of pidgin type of thing. However, if one is interested in real English, one needs to develop a LARGE vocabulary by learning lots of words as as well as word combinations. There is no way around it
I hope this makes sense and sorry if I was too heavy at times
V.
A little quotation from Lewis too 
. But who cares... 
The most important is that it illustrated my point very well 
. Sad face it is not. It's just that many people cling to this misconception that "learning a lot of new words" means cramming into their heads huge vocabulary lists with the English word on the left and the translation on the right. So I thought this must be bad news for them 
. On the other hand, the good news is that learning the new vocabulary does not necessarily have to be such a mind-numbingly boring work. As Szwagier has just observed, it can be fun too!
. But who cares... The most important is that it illustrated my point very well . Sad face it is not. It's just that many people cling to this misconception that "learning a lot of new words" means cramming into their heads huge vocabulary lists with the English word on the left and the translation on the right. So I thought this must be bad news for them . On the other hand, the good news is that learning the new vocabulary does not necessarily have to be such a mind-numbingly boring work. As Szwagier has just observed, it can be fun too!