Speaking four, five or *even six* languages: some musings on English discourse on multilingualism

I have read phrases such as "so'n'so speaks English as a third, fourth even fifth language" enough times that it has started to strike me as rather odd:

For many on the desert, like elder Reggie Uluru, English is a foreign language, or used as a third, fourth or even fifth language. 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald "The end of Uluru's long quiet conflict which baffled both sides" (November 1, 2019) [link]

While this expression is not particularly common it seems to be a minor trope. It comes in different guises; it can be used with cardinal instead of ordinal numbers:

However Chaoke noted more than a decade later that the usage rate of Evenki remained quite high, and that it was still common to find Evenki speakers who were proficient in three, four or even five languages.

Source: Wikipedia "Evenki language" [link]

Or with a different series of numbers:

The main language groups living in these communities are Jawoyn, Mielli (sic), Ngalkpon, and Rembarrnga, and Elders generally speak several languages, with English as a fourth, fifth, or even sixth language. 

Source: Smith, Clare & Gary Jackson. 2008. "The Ethics of Collaboration: whose culture? whose intellectual property? who benefits?" in Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: engaging descendant communities [citation from p174]

And while my own experience is that I've come across this trope mostly in reference to Aboriginal Australia, this is subjective and likely due to the stuff I come across naturally. It certainly exists in other discourses:

My first advice to my kid(s) when they reach their teens would be to pick up a third, fourth or even fifth language.

— Kenn (@kennleandre) August 1, 2014

The reason this phrase has started to stick in my mind is because it is odd.

Firstly, the number sequence is bizarrely specific yet also arbitrary: why is the 3-5 range of language abilities sometimes apparently important and other times the 4-6 range? Try Googling variants of the phrase using different number ranges and see what you get. I particularly like expanded ranges like this one that has a two-to-five range:

Reporting news is an important aspect of Aboriginal life particularly in remote communities, but what benefit does it serve broadcasting in English when members of these communities speak English as a second, third, fourth or even fifth language?

 Source: CAAMA "Utilising Aboriginal Language in Remote Media" (October 2, 2017) [link]

Secondly, the use of the emphatic adverb even reflects the arbitrariness of the phrase further. The function of even in discourse like this is to convey surprise, something unexpected or something extreme as in my made-up example:

Even Bette Midler criticised Scott Morrison's handling of the bushfire crisis

So why would one writer apparently find it extreme for someone to speak "even five" languages while another writer feels that speaking "even six" languages is extreme. Here's an example from the Australian Senate Hansard from October 26, 1955 that marks the 'surprising' level at "even nine" languages:

Some of those immigrants are friends of mine, and they are highly cultured people. Many of them can speak six, seven, eight, and even nine languages...

Source: Senator Grant (NSW), Australian Senate Hansard, October 26, 1955 [link]

No particular reason seems to exist why the various number ranges are selected and no particular reason to select a number and mark it as surprising with the use of even. Additionally, there is actually no semantic reason to use the phrase at all, as all examples can be reworded using the widely understood term and more precise 'multilingual'. (If the emphasis of even is needed, just modify it to  something like 'highly multilingual').

So what is going on with the use of this "N, N+1 or even N+2 languages" structure when it is actually not necessary semantically, arbitrary and possibly unnecessarily verbose. Here are my two theories:

Most of the examples I've cited are Australian and Australia is well known for having the Monolingual Mindset that affects countries like ours that are heavily English-dominant. Multilingualism is seen as exceptional and so under Monolingual Mindset discourses, it may not be enough to use a more clinical term like 'multilingual'. We need to make some sort of dramatic flourish out of multilingualism. My theory here can be easily debunked if I looked at discourse in more multilingual societies and found this structure exists there too, but I do think that in the Australian context this is a reasonable theory.

The other thing I think going on is it is used as a rhetorical device; a stylistic turn to persuade audiences to appreciate or be impressed by multilingualism. In countries with Monolingual Mindsets like Australia this can be quite relevant. But is it a successful rhetorical device? I'd argue yes. Despite me writing about the phrase here in a way that is problematising it, the phrase is not so incredibly common that it has become an eyeroll inducing cliche. I would say that to most people who read/hear it, it does have the desired persuasive effect.

So what's my overall point? None really. I just liked thinking about this phrase that on the one hand seems so specific and informative but on the other hand is so weirdly arbitrary. And the sort of public dialogue we have about language and multilingualism in Australia always interests me. I thought I'd throw my musings out there because sometimes others have equally interesting thoughts and ideas they sometimes share. Comments welcome!

Excerpt from: Smith, Clare & Gary Jackson. 2008. "The Ethics of Collaboration: whose culture? whose intellectual property? who benefits?" in Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: engaging descendant communities [citation from p174]