English is a global language. With the rise of electronic communication,
worldwide trade and international travel, its status has far surpassed
that of a link language. English is equated with success. Wherever you go--
from the luxuriant rain-forests of Costa Rica to the untamed wilds of
Serengeti to the hodgepodge of Eastern bazaars--you're sure to find someone
who speaks English, albeit in an accent far different from yours. If nothing
else, English makes a disguised appearance in hybrids such as Franglais,
Spanglish, Hinglish, etc.
Of course, this rise in popularity of English is not without a downside.
Talk with someone for whom English is not a first language and you sense
a feeling of loss. Reactions vary greatly--from the trace of helplessness
of parents whose children can't appreciate a poem in their native language,
to lawmakers making it mandatory for a company to also have a Web site in
the language of their country before the company can do business there.
What do you think? We'd love to hear from you about this subject, whether
English is your first language or not. Join us on the bulletin board
http://wordsmith.org/board/ to discuss. Meanwhile, taste a few words from
the world's newspapers.
English as a global language will be discussed today in an online chat with
David Crystal, author of the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language
and other books on language. Join us at
http://wordsmith.org/chat/dc.html on Feb 26, 2001 at 3 PM GMT (10 AM EST U.S.).
I live in Israel where Hebrew and Arabic are the 'official' languages, but most everyone learns and speaks English quite well, and it is THE language of business and the internet and diplomacy (these days). Thing is - when one is learning another language, and especially languages like Hebrew & Arabic which are so different from English, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember even the simplest words in English and so we speak in a mixture of two languages (or sometimes more) all at once! In fact, English speakers here (and probably others as well) have a saying - we become NOT fluent in two languages!
Lets face it; English is the de facto lingua franca!
Rod Ward
Aut numquam testes, aut perfice.
> you're sure to find someone who speaks English,
And wherever you go--from Miami to Los Angeles--you can be sure to find someone who speaks Spanish...
> We'd love to hear from you about this subject
In my native tongue or in English? ...
hmmmm, I think I did this wrong - it's my first time. I posted something on the main page. If people would like to e-mail me (sorry I only read English), that would be great. English is a world language, but not THE world language. I live in Asia and have experienced this to be the way things are in 'the East'.
It's early and I am have not finished my first cup of coffee here so I forewarn the reader that I might appear to be overly cynical, but while it seems a very romantic notion to morn the passing of other languages in favor of a global language, exactly how much progress towards global peace and prosperity can we make without a common language? I find great beauty in our ethnic and cultural differences, but many people use them as reasons to hate and kill. We simply interact too much at this point in our global history to exist without a common form of communication.
On another note, I think that every generation morns how their children have twisted, torn, and rather disrespectful stomped on the language their parents tried to teach them. Trace English back to the late 1800's and Henry James' "The Ambassadors" or back to the Middle English of Chaucer and it is easy to see that English is not a carefully preserved or respected language at all. I dare say that there have been some Irish and Scottish films of note lately where subtitles made it possible for me to understand the English dialogue at all. A language that is controlled too tightly is a culture where thought is controlled too tightly.
I think that English has some momentum right now to become the basis for a global language and it will be a remarkable thing to be able to communicate one on one with anyone on the planet. However, I am sure that it will not be too long before our kids start taking it for granted and the subject probably will probably fade into obscurity until we translate the first signals from the alien mother ship telling us that there is a waiting period before we can start using their language or currency. (They will probably have a formal procedure to decide if we are intelligent life that deserves language and trade, or if they should gas the lot of us and make room for the alien equivalent of Disney world.)
I'm pleased that this week's theme has brought some new minds to the board! Welcome!
I'd like to point out a couple of threads where this topic has been discussed previously:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=16487 (contains some good statistics
on the major languages)
Also germane:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=15923I hope those who can participate in the chat today with David Crystal enjoy it. I'll have to content myself with the transcript.
English is the language of the current dominant world power and until that changes most people will choose to learn it as a second language. No judgement or chauvinism intended or implied, just a fact. In the meantime, Esperanto has been kicking around for more than a century now. In a perfect world, we would be able to converse with each other fluently without losing our cultural diversity or identities.
Unfortunately, in the United States, we speak a constantly-bastardized version of English. Nouns suddenly become verbs (Do you golf?) tenses become mixed (Price reduction on select items), and new words are coined daily. When we speak of a global language, that language would need to be more static than US English. New words are needed to express new concepts, but slang and lack of use of any language rules must be eliminated before there can be a truly global language.
While US English is my first language, I believe it is a poor choice for use as a global language. There are more exceptions than rules, bizarre pronunciations, and words that are spelled the same but have diverse, sometimes opposite meanings, than in other languages. We seem to pride ourselves on the flexibility and changeability of US English. With this language in a constant state of flux, how can we expect non-native speakers of this language to understand all of the subtleties and nuances of it?
While it may be seen as a negative attribute by some, the attempts to keep French as a stable language would, on the surface, recommend that language as more of a global one due to its stability and consistency. There may be other reasons to rule out French, but it at least demonstrates some of the features necessary to be globally accepted for international use.
I was married to a Singaporean, and lived in that country for about two years. While there, I learned to speak fluently the lingua franca, called "Singlish," which incorporated a primarily English vocabulary (with some Chinese dialect and Malay) in an Asian syntax and rhythm. I am currently in a relationship with a gentleman from Iraq who speaks Chaldean, Arabic and English. I do appreciate the sense of disjunction that can occur in such relationships, and also the tremendous insights. Although my former mother-in-law spoke no English, we did manage to communicate effectively; even though my boyfriend does not always know the correct word or usage, I have never not been able to understand what he is talking about. As for the "choice" of English as a global language, who is it that is making the choice? I agree that its place as a global language is primarily due to the current dominance of the United States in commercial and/or political matters. But the thing about a "living" language, like any other "living" thing, is that no one is necessarily "in control" of what happens to it out in the wider world. Maybe that makes it more difficult, or more challenging, depending on how you want to look at it and how enlightened you are or are willing to be.
Although I think that it is a great, wonderful language, I think that it has too put too much pressure on those who have moved to this country that do not speak the language. My mother failed to teach me her native language to prevent confusing herself while trying to learn English. She tried very hard to speak English perfectly. Now that she does speak great English (20 years later), she is not able to even dream in her native language (Korean).
It is obviously a painful process to learn English well as a second language. But the price of not doing so may be worse, such as being limited to in some sort of ghetto.
Being born and raised in the US, English is my first language, but not the first language of my parents. They tried hard to teach me their language (Korean), but it is not reinforced in the environment in the US. It seems that even if I meet other "Korean" people (especially second or third generations), they tend to want to speak in English, too. As a result, I realize that I've lost a lot of the culture, because a lot of the culture is contained in the language. I'm what my parents call "Americanized," and I don't understand or relate to the Korean culture much at all because I don't understand the language. I watched a tv show recently about some hearing implants. Deaf people don't view themselves as disabled, and they tend to favor against getting their children these implants to hear because they say that the children won't understand "deaf culture." It was really an eye opener... because then I realized more about how my parents feel when I don't communicate with them or other relatives in their own language.
I do notice, however, that as English is taught more and more in Korea, that the American popular culture (clothes, music, movies, etc.) tends to infiltrate their society. When I visited the big cities there, it reminded me a lot of New York City.
Also as a side note, the mixture of Korean and English words when spoken is called, "Konglish." My mom speaks it really well.
I agree that that language may be a barrier to achieving global peace, but do you honestly subscribe to the idea that we shall EVER attain world peace? A common language may cause few (FEW, I say) spats between people of different languages, but I think most of the time any skirmishes are from cultural differences or other moral deficiencies, which are NOT bound by seperate languages.
This possibly sounds rather rude, so I apologize. I only intend to assert my opinions on this. I hope I cause no offense.
Daniel
While language plays a part in the loss of culture-- i think the immigrant experience is so overwhelming, that language is only one part of it.
Both my parents are immigrants, and both grew up in an english speaking culture--but Irish culture is not the same as English. and there was a good deal of culture lost. Partly, there exist an "irish-American" culture that has aspects of irish culture, but is not the same. Irish-Americans were "surprised" that my parent didn't "know irish songs"-- Of course they did know irish songs-- but not irish american songs.. "Danny Boy" is typical-- it this country it is considered an "irish" song-- but in Ireland, it is an "irish-American" song. there are many Irish Amercan songs that are unknown in ireland-- Tura-lura-lura, the irish lulabye is a good example.
I learned irish culture- and i learned, from second cousins (who had been in this country 60 years before my parents came--both side of the family!), and other irish amercans--irish american culture. But i fought learning real irish culture till i was an adult-- I wanted to "fit in" and be "normal".
My parents too, didn't presure us-- they wanted us to grow up and be American-- Ireland was their past, but America was my future. So even though we shared a language-- i learned most of what i know about irish culture as an adult. I was helped by having first cousins and Aunt and Uncles still alive in ireland, and by having visited ireland--both as a child, and as adult. But i also made a point of reading and learning about irish common law-- a very different concept of law than English common law-- but echo's of it could be found in my parents "solutions" to inequities.
My family is rich in culture-- my mothers fathers family can be traced back 500 years in the city of Dublin-- and all of it has been documented in a two volume series-- This same grandfather was a top sargent under Michael Collins, in the Irish Free State Army--my mother was born in the army barracks of Dublin Castle! But these things where not talked about when i was a child--it was only when the movie was made about Michael Collins, that my mother mentioned, that as top sargent, it fell to my grandfather, (a the leader had a public ceremony) to get the keys from the British Sargent at Arms, and to unlock all the doors of Dublin Castle, and secure the site. If the movie hadn't been made, i wonder if i would have every learned that! Not that all my relatives where so noble-- when asked what part he played in the Easter uprising-- one uncle replied--"Part? You know the bloody english where using live ammo? I stayed the hell away!"--but that too it part of my culture--the recognision that most of the irish didn't get involved in the uprising-- they wanted the English out, but not at the cost of their lives!.
It falls to the children of immigrants to work to keep their parents culture.. Its infinately harder, when you have also lost your parents language-- but English is not the the reason for culture loss-- it is a much broader problem, of which language is one of the most evident markers.
It falls to the children of immigrants to work to keep their parents culture.. Its infinately harder, when you have also lost your parents language-- but English is not the the reason for culture loss-- it is a much broader problem, of which language is one of the most evident markers.
Hopefully the current climate of it being socially ok to have ethincity will stay with us for a long time. My girls and I have made family project of finding out more about our heritage. I am 2nd,3rd, or 4th generation US depending on which grand /great grandparent we look at. Most of whom in order to fit in, so they deleted as much of their prior country traditions as possible. Of course one of the nice parts of rebuilding our ethnicty is being able to chose the traditions we like, without the "but we always done it that way" argument.
CJ
It falls to the children of immigrants to work to keep their parents culture.. Its infinately harder, when you have also lost your parents language-- but English is not the the reason for culture loss-- it is a much broader problem, of which language is one of the most evident markers.
One of the reasons for culture loss for immigrants is the lack of the luxury of time. There is just not enough time for the pleasures of culture, your own or otherwise, when in order to achieve your dreams in your new country you have to expend all your time in the honing of your skills and one of the most important skill is to have a good grasp of the medium of expression which is your new country's language.
chronist
Nice article by Crum in The Observer (
http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,458371,00.html). Interesting to see that most Europeans (including the French!) haven't just accepted English, but appear to be embracing it.
Long live Global English - the second language of the world. I wonder if we'll see the day when it's the first language of nobody... hmmm... [adopting-pose-of-Dante-as-thinker emoticon]
cheer
the sunshine warrior
Great article, thank you shanks. Can any one of our linguists explain this statement from the article:
With the disappearance of some versions of, for instance, Maori languages the loss is not just linguistic.
What versions of Maori have disappeared? I know of two main "versions" of Maori, NZ Maori (with its several regional variants) and Cook Island Maori, aka Rarotongan. Neither Maori has disappeared, and NZ Maori is undergoing a renaissance, not a withering. Given that it is once again not hard to find children who cannot speak English, and who remain inmonolingually Maori schools until they are around eleven, the idea of Maori "versions" disappearing caught me by surprise. Cook Island Maori does not seem to be disappearing either, though my perceptions may be coloured by knowing dozens of people for whom it is their first language, and several others who have learned it. What other "versions" of Maori were there, and when did they disappear? NicholasW, anybody, please?
Max
I'd venture the guess that this is akin to the "Whose Chinese is bigger?" question. One assumes (the Royal 'one', of course) that there was greater dialectical differentiation of Maori in NZ before the Western settlement of it - and it is this variety that is being lost - no longer is one village virtually unintelligible to the one in the next valley, and so on.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just babbling - but I'm sleepy and mildly hungover, so I'm indulging myself.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
Thanks, yes, that was a good article to come across. I am sure you are right, too Shanks - after all, there were said to be literally hundreds of variant languages in Oz before Brits set foot on land there. Let us know if you find out more, Max?
I am a 4th generation Hispanic in the Midwest US who's fluency in English is regarded as among the best. My father didn't learn English until he went to 1st grade. and I didn't [begin to] learn Spanish, until I was in 9th grade. Alas, while I can sing some of the old Spanish Folk songs, I cannot speak the tongue. I regard myself as the generation that dropped the ball of our proud family tongue. I will fix that unless I die too soon.
I do believe that the language is the soul of our culture, and needs to be preserved. So I practice a little every day. AND I make sure my kids see me practice and know that I am serious about learning our mother tongue. We do practice at the table almost every night, but I know that TV's influence may outreach mine as they grow.
As for the notion that language will help resolve world peace and put to rest the "power of the Tower of Babel"... Hogwash. Look at how many nations who spoke the same language have warred with each other, English included. So we have a current fad for English that covers almost one third of the globe. Mostly for business and trade reasons. It will solve some mis-communication disagreements and yet be the cause of some new ones. Give it a minute of thought and I think you will agree.
Are you unaware that the Chinese will forever veto such an official and eternal proclomation of "English is THE global language". Any international linguist should be able to tell you how they fight such potentialities since they believe an Oriental tongue will be easier to learn as THE international language…. mostly because so many Chinese already speak one. They have a point but their persuasions are as unskilled and no better than cold war Russian's were. Still, they are as insulted as they want to be, and insist that they be put at the head of the line for being able to push the world's power buttons. Sigh. Someone tell them about catching flies with vinegar. So far they seem pretty unhappy with the West in general. They could have half the globe's population in one quick power grab and who's to say what they really want. I don't think they know yet. Just remember that today's English fad, could become subsumed by economics again, just as it has now.
I believe the winner will be the most flexible language, meaning some new pidgin phonetically spelled English that arises on the internet, that is brokered and filtered with legally agreed to meanings like a good dictionary company would do. That is what will take over in an unstoppable manner. And this will be one that uses internationally accepted phonetic spellings to eliminate all the 11 differerent spellings to elicit the phoneme "sh".
No, it still won't bring world peace or stop world hunger. Language will always be as potent as cannonballs, and some will always regard the sword as their dependable "fallback persuasion".
But a global English WILL still be a good thing. And there may be two gloabl languages, an oriental one and a Western one. Hegemony is not necessary for success of a global language.
Still we ought to shudder at the idea of visiting Italy and no one speaks Italian, or New Zealand and no one speaks Maori. I do. Cultural treasures belong in the culture, not JUST in museums
Thanks for listening
TC
As for the notion that language will help resolve world peace and put to rest the "power of the Tower of Babel"…to eliminate all the 11 differerent spellings to elicit the phoneme "sh".After all that, there may be a few librarians who will tell you "Sh" does still bring peace.
Hi, zevahcat, welcome to the looney bin.
On May 15, The New York Times reports that English as a global language is once again being questioned. This time in Brazil. If a powerful member of Congress will have his way, words like "drive-in", hotdog" and "milkshake", "valet parking" and "personal banker" will be illegal.
chronist
Illegal as what? Speaking German in the US during WWII?
I think the homogenization of language is a natural process in this age of mass media, and that the ultimate globular language will be a hybrid of all the present tongues (remember, I'm thinking in terms of ages of linguistic evolution here, not years). But, I also think this ultimate prospect, while being good for the strivings of world peace,
also comes with a price as illustrated by the dilution and loss of accents and dialects across the continental United States. I thinks it's kind of sad to see this linquistic variety and diversity fading away due to the influence of the mass media (and, now, what impact is the internet having on this process?). Gone are the broad regional accents...the Boston/New England accent of the Kennedys; the rich Southern drawl and accompanying linguistic imagery which made a 5th grade newcomer from Mississippi (to New Jersey circa 1965) almost incomprehensible to me; the hard-R Western twang, etc. (and if anybody mentions a "Jersey accent" I'll scream...it's a media myth!!) Part of this trend is due to actors and broadcasters being encouraged to "lose" their accents and practice "clear" diction and enunciation...so all these colorful linguistic tapestries are disappearing from the landscape. And, so, I believe that a World Language, following this process, will eventually winnow itself from the multitude of tongues...in short, it will discover, itself. For true believers of a World Community, whatever language helps achieve that goal will be the appropriate tongue...why force the issue? [chat]
Part of this trend is due to actors and broadcasters being encouraged to "lose" their accents and practice "clear" diction and enunciation
Dan Rather is one of those broadcasters, but you can still tell that the midwestern TV accent is not his natural accent. He makes up for a loss of accent flavor with his weird Texas metaphors.
Barbara Walters is another story, though. How in the world did she get into broadcasting with that unintelligible voice?
In reply to:
Part of this trend is due to actors and broadcasters being encouraged to "lose" their accents and practice "clear" diction and enunciation...
This may be the case in the US, but the BBC seems to be encouraging the use of regional accents by its newsreaders. None of the accents I hear from the presenters on its world TV service are particularly hard to understand despite the considerable variety.
Bingley
This may be the case in the US, but the BBC seems to be encouraging the use of regional accents by its newsreaders.
US broadcasters are probably not encouraged to keep their accents because many Americans find certain accents very annoying (New York, Boston and Southern specifically.) I'm sure if the newscasters had British or Australian accents they would not be encouraged to lose them because so many Americans love them. The Crocodile Hunter is incredibly popular here. Much of that probably has to do with his accent. A local radio station recently hired a female British DJ, obviously partially because of her accent.
Which raises the question: what is the basis for preferring some accents over others? Merely that one sounds more melodious than another, or is it a value judgment on the place of origin itself?
I've noticed that one can hear a much wider variety of accents on public radio and t.v. than on the major networks, probably indicative of the networks' reluctance to risk employing foreign-sounding correspondents. An Ohio accent never offended anyone, as far as I know. And even the least worldly person can understand it.
re:US broadcasters are probably not encouraged to keep their accents because many Americans find certain accents very annoying (New York....
watsa mattah wid ya? ya don't like new yawkers? i done (to rhyme with hone) know why! Midah, pisano, if you don't kepesh NYers its cause you just speak english-- NY english is richer-- sit, mosh, esa a bagel-- manga a pizza, -have a cup of regular (light and sweet coffee-- that gets all its flavor from the paper cup)
keep your ears open-- listen to us drop the "r" in half our words-- new yawk-- and add them to r less words -- turlet (toilet)-- we'll start our sentence with a word from Spanglish-- not to be confused with Spanish-- add in a word or two of italian, and finish up with something from yidish-- what-- you want we should only use english? nu-- what you don't understand? What's not to understand? its as easy as riding the subway--
why schelp all over the globe? we got it all--but not to much-- just a schmer.. the kids play handball with "spaldeens" every one shops in a bodega at least once in a while-- and if you're going to by meat from the falafal stand-- make sure its halal-- otherwise it aint kosher.
the english here is kopacetic!