First, I'm not a mind reader, all I had to go on is what you posted. And word-choice means something, okay?

I said "possible usage confusion" because I was uncertain from your post whether you were using that to mean "monolingual English-speakers" or were considering "monolingual" as synonymous with "native." (I've seen a lot of people misuse terms in that manner, and I don't exactly know you, thus the uncertainty.) You've certainly settled the question of what you meant.

As for my linguistic background (since you've brought up your own): I grew up with English combined with a smattering of two other languages (so an acquaintance, not knowledge) and took one of those as second language in school. (The other is unfortunately not taught in schools.) So, while, unlike yourself, I'm no polyglot, I presently know a mere two languages but am acquainted with others. (To clarify, by "acquainted" I mean knowing some words and phrases as well as a little grammar and syntax.)

In the UK, sure, but outside of that: Is it?
Also, given the level of language ability you see, among most who've gone through mandatory foreign language learning, in mandatory education, i.e. just remembering a few words and phrases...
That clearly doesn't count. Only those who actually properly learn the language(s), and don't relatively instantly forget them, are relevant. There are some, sure, but not any numbers that are particularly significant, in terms of this issue.

In the US (including D.C. and the territories), it's decided on first on a state level and then by school district. The quality of the classes is decided similarly. However, it is a very common college requirement, and American standardized college tests for second languages require a decent proficiency (at least they did until schools tried to buck standardized testing). So the overall requirements are de facto higher than they are de jure, but after graduating, who knows.

As for other Anglophone countries, as far as I could find: Australia and New Zealand have some foreign-language schools but no second-language requirements, Canada requires French in schools conducted in English and English in schools conducted in French, the Republic of Ireland does the same as Canada but with Gaelic, and Malta requires students to pass standarized proficiency tests in English and Maltese.

I agree that learning a few phrases and words and then regurgitating them is not learning a language. If that were the case then most people would be prodigious polyglots (and I'd be Marie of Roumania). Such knowledge is at best an acquaintance; typically much less than that. As you mentioned, proficiency is not decided on by how many hours you took or whether you passed a test x-years ago. But schooling certainly doesn't hurt.

Do we really need a study, for something so obvious?

Only it isn't obvious. Subtle perhaps, but not obvious. We do not know if initial "gi" tends toward soft or hard g in Modern English because we've never done studies singling out native speakers for such pronunciation variations. As I mentioned in both my previous posts, according to linguists, initial "gi" has never had a regular pronunciation in English, even Old English (including the runic equivalents). Our use of one pronunciation or another is highly dependant on the origin of the word — which leaves no particular rule for acronyms or words from languages which are from further afield. (On Wikipedia's page about "gif" pronunciation, one linguist even described it as a flip of a coin.) So finding that initial "gi" tends toward soft g in Modern English for such cases would be meaningful. At least for linguists and dictionaries.

As for your last bit on descriptivism: I'm with you. File formats are things we really ought not the use metonymically, "gif" included. Thing is, language is spoken by people, and people don't always bother to think (to put it nicely).

However, from a practical perspective, since it's the few against the many, fighting against such trends is an uphill battle. That's no reason to give up, of course, but it's is far from easy. Personally, I find that attempts to actively correct such stupidities are most often met with eye-rolling, doubling down, or outright anger. So, apart from people I end up teaching/tutoring in one capacity or another, I mentally bemoan it and only correct if I know the other party won't likely roast me for daring to challenge their English.

In the case of metonymic "gif," I just remind myself that most people probably don't check the file format before talking or typing. …And that language is a surprisingly divisive topic.

Quote from blackluna

First, I'm not a mind reader, all I had to go on is what you posted.

Hence (especially given the "possible") why I didn't say anything to criticize you. (as would have been my knee-jerk reaction) Just clarify.

And word-choice means something, okay?

And I try to be very deliberate, in my word choice. (though I do mess up, and/or get sloppy, on occasion)

So, while, unlike yourself, I'm no polyglot, I presently know a mere two languages but am acquainted with others.

Well, if you properly know that Second Language (what counts as "properly" is difficult to judge, and very subjective), then you are bilingual, which satisfies the minimum qualification, for being a polyglot.

In the US (including D.C. and the territories), it's decided on first on a state level and then by school district.

...and I doubt that most of them, have a requirement to learn a non-English language. Maybe, possibility, at least at High School level, but I'd be shocked by even that.

The quality of the classes is decided similarly.

Similar to what?

However, it is a very common college requirement, and American standardized college tests for second languages require a decent proficiency (at least they did until schools tried to buck standardized testing).

So not a universal requirement, but exists in many schools/specialities, then?
Better than I'd expect, but still: If that "decent proficiency" is anywhere close to the requirements in Europe, the resulting proficiency is barely worth mentioning.
Especially as it's not something you've studied from Junior High, all the way up to college, but just during college. (so... four years, at most?)

Malta requires students to pass standarized proficiency tests in English and Maltese.

Malta? I'm very surprised to hear that country mentioned. I had to look it up, and it appears that they include English as an official language ...but it is, nevertheless, a foreign language, which isn't spoken as a native language (other than by a minority), so it is clearly not an Anglophone/English-speaking country. Probably even less so, than India.

Canada... That's not so much Canada, as it is Quebec, really. I dunno if you should count Quebec as Anglophone, or partially Anglophone and partially Francophone, but I suppose it still counts, either way?

As for Ireland, I wonder how well the average Irish person actually knows Irish Gaelic... It's clear that very few actually use the language, after all. Well, at least it appears to be valued, and have some passionate proponents.

So... The statement of "second languages being a required part of mandatory education in many English-speaking countries", doesn't appear to be all that accurate, as it seems to just be the UK, Ireland, and Quebec.

Do we really need a study, for something so obvious?

Only it isn't obvious.

...except that it clearly is. I fail to see how it possibly could be any less than blindingly obvious

We do not know if initial "gi" tends toward soft or hard g in Modern English because we've never done studies singling out native speakers for such pronunciation variations.

We're talking about non-native speakers, so...

Thing is, language is spoken by people, and people don't always bother to think (to put it nicely).

Indeed!

However, from a practical perspective, since it's the few against the many, fighting against such trends is an uphill battle. That's no reason to give up, of course, but it's is far from easy.

Mm, sadly.