The globalisation of English

[meol]

[hide]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

 

he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture.

[/hide]

 

No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn.

 

Making it obligatory to learn a second language doesn't have anything to do with the nation keeping or losing their identity. It only allows the students to have opportunities to, for example, travel and work on the USA, or have British costumers. Yet, they still can keep their culture if they want.

 

 

 

Unless you were to proof that there is a correlation between the loss of culture and the (mandatory) learning of a (specific) second language.

[World_Anonymous]

[hide]

I think taking your position to the extreme would promote tribalism and war. My position would be to embrace globalization yet keep diversity. Don't think it can be done? Come to Australia or some other culturally diverse nation - we've got a diverse cultural make-up yet that diversity comes under the unifying banner of who we are as a nation. Why can't the same be done globally? Diversity and unity is part of who we are as a species. To me, denying unity promotes divisiveness in the form of racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, etc (or to sum those things up in a word, tribalism).

 

 

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

What exactly is that relevant to?

 

he probably meant to quote the post with all the percentages of languages spoken. Or he's trying to support your argument by saying China is diverse in languages, but retains its identity as Chinese culture.

[/hide]

 

No, he said countries are able to globalise but also retain their identity, and obviously China isn't if English is a requirement there to learn.

 

Making it obligatory to learn a second language doesn't have anything to do with the nation keeping or losing their identity. It only allows the students to have opportunities to, for example, travel and work on the USA, or have British costumers. Yet, they still can keep their culture if they want.

 

 

 

Unless you were to proof that there is a correlation between the loss of culture and the (mandatory) learning of a (specific) second language.

 

 

 

But, as I said above, if you look at the other side of the globalisation, English is being hurt by expanding our language to places that don't need to be involved with our language. I'd be alright with a standard language like Esperanto, but using one cultures language to make it a worldwide standard is criminal to everybody.

[warri0r45]

Yes, you should be required to learn that language if you're immigrating there, but why be required to learn if you're not? A culture can survive with that kind of requirement, yes, but it's also hurting the English culture in my opinion, by requiring the globalisarion of a culture that belongs to those within the USA and British Commonwealth.

 

 

 

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol:

[malo2]

want to explain why globalization is bad before you make a statement like that?

[meol]

But how is "English being hurt by globalisation" exactly?

 

Also, the USA aren't forcing other countries (directly, anyway) to use English. The companies in other countries chose to do so because of profit, because the economy of the US is one of the largest in the world (and this is why so many people are learning Chinese at the moment).

[World_Anonymous]

Yes, you should be required to learn that language if you're immigrating there, but why be required to learn if you're not? A culture can survive with that kind of requirement, yes, but it's also hurting the English culture in my opinion, by requiring the globalisarion of a culture that belongs to those within the USA and British Commonwealth.

 

 

 

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol:

 

 

 

And an obvious disregard for Oxford commas. :P

 

 

 

Personally, I'd rather Britain have left Australia, India, portions of Africa, etc, to themselves, but that's part of their kingdom in the past I suppose. The thing there however, is that it was almost a British invasion, and here, countries are requiring it, not Britain forcing them to do so.

 

 

 

It doesn't hurt a culture, but we need to respect the cultures as individuals, and no one should sanction them to constrict to other cultures ideals (or nor shall they steal other culture's ideals), except for in the case of extreme violation of human rights.

[tryto]

Language does not always equal culture.

[World_Anonymous]

To sum up my thoughts on language, I just don't want to see any single culture become the basis for globalisation. I'd rather there be a worldwide Esperanto-like language, learned by everybody, so that all cultures can have their own languages, but still communicate.

[warri0r45]

Yes, you should be required to learn that language if you're immigrating there, but why be required to learn if you're not? A culture can survive with that kind of requirement, yes, but it's also hurting the English culture in my opinion, by requiring the globalisarion of a culture that belongs to those within the USA and British Commonwealth.

 

 

 

Ok, you seem to agree. So now for your new points - how does the spread of the English language or culture hurt it? You do realise if the English culture didn't spread, there would be no USA or Australia, don't you? So the spread of the English culture seems to make new cultures with their own identity and we agree that a spread of culture to other countries won't kill that spreading culture. So what exactly is the problem? I'm bloody proud as hell that I'm an Australian and part of the Aussie culture. I wouldn't even be an Australian if the English didn't colonize. Apart from all that, the motherland seems still have their own culture steeped in tea, crumpets, football (soccer) and very poor cricket. :lol:

 

 

 

And an obvious disregard for Oxford commas. :P

 

 

 

Personally, I'd rather Britain have left Australia, India, portions of Africa, etc, to themselves, but that's part of their kingdom in the past I suppose. The thing there however, is that it was almost a British invasion, and here, countries are requiring it, not Britain forcing them to do so.

 

 

 

It doesn't hurt a culture, but we need to respect the cultures as individuals, and no one should sanction them to constrict to other cultures ideals (or nor shall they steal other culture's ideals), except for in the case of extreme violation of human rights.

 

You kind of just shot yourself in the foot... No, I agree, I don't think us English speakers should sanction others to speak English, yet you said it yourself - the countries themselves (e.g. China) are requiring it, the Poms aren't sanctioning them to do so. It would seem China, then, is embracing globalization, furthur supported by their increasing capitalism and economic growth as part of an emerging world superpower. They are willing contenders in this game as are many others vis a vis participation in international issues such as global warming and international organizations such as the UN.

 

 

 

As a matter of principle I'd agree with you that no one should be allowed to take away another's core culture or identity (as long as it's not like one of the examples Rebdragon mentioned on page 1) but if these key players like the game they're playing, it kind of makes that point moot, dosen't it?

[meol]

Yes, it'd be great if we could all learn a common language like Esperanto or Interlingua. But why is it wrong that the common language becomes English, Chinese or Zulu? The own countries will still have their own languages, just as it happens right now.

[World_Anonymous]

Yes, it'd be great if we could all learn a common language like Esperanto or Interlingua. But why is it wrong that the common language becomes English, Chinese or Zulu? The own countries will still have their own languages, just as it happens right now.

 

 

 

Because of my original viewpoint, that each culture has its own identity, it's biased and unfair to promote a culture as a worldwide standard. English is the language of the USA and British Commonwealth, French is the language of France, French Guyana, and Quebec, Chinese is the language of the People's Republic of China, and so on and so fourth.

[meol]

Nowadays, globalisation is only carried out economically, not culturally, like some centuries ago. That's an important difference. Instead of Spanish or British coming to America and forcing their culture and believes upon the indigenous cultures, we now have a (French) corporation that opens a regional hub somewhere else (in Japan). Although this might cause the demand of Italian-speaking workers in Japan, that wouldn't cause any loss of identity.

 

 

 

Also, promoting a language as a worldwide standard (i.e. English) is not the same as promoting the respective culture. As an example, I've learned English and German, but you don't see me wearing adopting any aspect of any of those cultures.

[Zonorhc]

I wrote an essay on this. Well, a very close topic. Here, let me fetch the relevant points.

 

 

 

Perhaps the most damning point of consideration when examining the English language for any indication of imperialism is its dominance in many areas of importance in today's world: science, technology and medicine; in research, books and periodicals; in software, transnational business, trade, shipping and aviation; in diplomacy and international organisations; in mass media entertainment, news agencies, journalism, youth culture, sport and educational systems.1 Indeed, it is difficult to deny that English is the language of choice in these things, as many of them either develop in English-speaking nations, such as software and mass media entertainment, or are based in those nations, such as the United Nations in New York. In the former case, the dominance of English is logical, as the development of new technologies and medicines, or the production of film and software, rests primarily in the hands of large corporations in English-speaking nations, such as the United States or the United Kingdom. A case in point would be the aviation industry: as it owes much of its development to the United States, English is used as a medium of communication in air control towers worldwide, even between air traffic controllers and pilots who do not come from English-speaking backgrounds.2 A further example would be in higher educational systems, as virtually all university degree programs worldwide use textbooks written in English.3 Proficiency in the language, therefore, is essential to success in higher education, and is therefore seen as essential to success in business or high-paying careers.

 

 

 

In the case of diplomacy and other by-definition international ventures, English dominates as it is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ likely owing to its dominance in media and telecommunications4 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the more commonly spoken major language for many different nations. It has also been noted that its prevalence in diplomatic contexts is due in part to nations with ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålanguages of little international statusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[BlueLancer]

Nice article Zonorhc.

 

 

 

And yes, the world is better off with a language or two that are nearly universally (and, at least partially) understood by the majority of the world's people.

 

 

 

Sure, there are countries where barely any of the population knows English, but there's bound to be always a few people who understand vital words, like if you get in trouble, you can almost rest assured someone in the local community knows the word "hospital".

 

 

 

Heck, knowing multiple languages is even better. If you could speak English, Arabic, Russian, Chinese and Spanish, you could survive damn near anywhere in the world (since there are also a lot of countries where at least one of those languages is spoken as a secondary language). Throw in French and you can survive everywhere, even ex. african colonies where it's the 2nd language.

 

 

 

There are thousands of other languages, but those are the most vital since a lot of those native populations (on the exception of English) are not likely to know other languages than their own. You could go far with those.

[mrmyk]

Nice article Zonorhc.

 

 

 

And yes, the world is better off with a language or two that are nearly universally (and, at least partially) understood by the majority of the world's people.

 

 

 

Sure, there are countries where barely any of the population knows English, but there's bound to be always a few people who understand vital words, like if you get in trouble, you can almost rest assured someone in the local community knows the word "hospital".

 

 

 

Heck, knowing multiple languages is even better. If you could speak English, Arabic, Russian, Chinese and Spanish, you could survive damn near anywhere in the world (since there are also a lot of countries where at least one of those languages is spoken as a secondary language). Throw in French and you can survive everywhere, even ex. african colonies where it's the 2nd language.

 

 

 

There are thousands of other languages, but those are the most vital since a lot of those native populations (on the exception of English) are not likely to know other languages than their own. You could go far with those.

 

 

 

Yeah, with English you are assured in most places that peope will understand what you're saying to some extent. There's nothing wrong with lots of people understanding and learning English as it helps us all communicate better.

[dsavi]

It couldn't happen soon enough for me.

 

 

 

To the author of the thread: How many languages can you speak?

 

 

 

I can Speak two and read/write 3. And I still think English=Win.

[BlueLancer]

Yes, it'd be great if we could all learn a common language like Esperanto or Interlingua. But why is it wrong that the common language becomes English, Chinese or Zulu? The own countries will still have their own languages, just as it happens right now.

 

 

 

Because of my original viewpoint, that each culture has its own identity, it's biased and unfair to promote a culture as a worldwide standard. English is the language of the USA and British Commonwealth, French is the language of France, French Guyana, and Quebec, Chinese is the language of the People's Republic of China, and so on and so fourth.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that's a viewpoint. I know a lot of people who don't actually have a national allegiance. I don't either.

 

 

 

I don't define my identity based on my country (or in my case, countries) or it's history, that's extremely narrow minded and lame. Adapting something beneficial from every culture gets you much further.

 

 

 

Every person adapts something from other cultures, or uses items produced by other cultures, speaks words loaned from other cultures, eats foods originally made by other cultures, etc., whether they realize it or not.

 

 

 

Heck, an average american drinks German beer, watches a Korean TV and drives a car manufactured in Japan or France, and speaks into a Finnish cellphone, while buying Saudi produced gasoline for their car, buys a diamond engagement ring, stones mined in Russia or an African country...

 

 

 

Cultures are dependent on each other, and especially economically, cultural barriers have died out. Western commercialism and general culture also appeals to people of other cultures (fortunately or not, you decide).

[Norton3000]

IMO having a global language is a good thing, but it shouldn't replace any other languages. What I mean is a native Spanish speaker should be able to speak hes/her first language with other Spanish speaker. There's no reason why he/she should speak English.

 

 

 

I personally have to study 2 foreign languages: English and Swedish (even though there's no reason to study Swedish, if I want to speak with a Swedish person I can use English).

[Lenin64]

Well all this incredibly loud music on iPods turned up to full blast constantly will destroy our hearing anyways, so humans will evolve to have none. All non-verbal communcation. Maybe even telepathic. therefore,. no need for any gobal language other than sign :wink:

[aquariusman]

 

Tell that to China, their English speakers make up a population greater than the sum of all native English speakers.

 

 

 

So alot Chinese people speak English as a second language. How does that affect their culture? Every single one of the people still speak their mother tongue, and have embraced English as the best form of international communication. And the only reason they have is The U.S., Britain, and Canada are among the most economically powerful countries in the world. This is why countries are making English a requirement, because its practical, and like Reb said, globalization is what saves the lives of those in underdeveloped countries.

[usahellyes]

.

[ember3579]

I almost hate to say it, but I think the original poster abandoned ship. -.- To throw my hat into the ring:

 

 

 

As has been said earlier, learning a language isn't the same as being in an Inquisition. I just want you to answer 1 question to prove my point. How fast is it to travel from, say, Asia to America? 8, maybe 12 hours on a good plane? That's why we need to learn multiple languages. It's not mandatory by international law, but individual countries and corporations are learning the importance of multi-linguistic capabilities. If you don't plan on ever leaving your apparently gated community, then you're alright. If you plan on being a productive member of society, or even better, someone who makes a ton of cash, learn some languages. Mandarin Chinese and Arabic are good ones to try.

[JordanGM]

Well, there ought to be some language that a lot of people know, so that people in different areas can easily communicate.

 

 

 

I agree. I think it should be English, but only because that's the most known language so far, it would be stupid to basically 'restart'. I disagree with the poster that it shouldn't be necessary, because this would cause many problems.

[Zonorhc]

Globalization is a good thing. However, English should not be the world wide language, it just doesn't make sense. It is one of the hardest languages to learn, second only to Mandarin Chinese. The globalized language should be Spanish, as it is one of the easiest languages to learn.

 

 

 

Because, as we know, the growth of the telecommunication industry owes itself to countries that speak Spanish. And countries that speak Spanish are the most economically developed and militarily and diplomatically powerful nations in the world.

 

 

 

Be serious. English isn't dominant because it's easy to learn. It's dominant because it's profitable to learn.

[Satenza]

I agree somewhat, not about the de-globalization of English as it is incredibly important to have some form of universal language. I also disagree with your stance on the EU, as I see the main use of it is to promote trade links between involved countries as it was post WW2 and into the 70's, so I do think is should go through some radical reformations. The EU does promote western democracy into countries wishing to benefit. It has had a good impact in as much as it has spurred forward a transition to democracy for a few countries, which were coming towards the end of Soviet rule or fascist dictatorships. What I completely disagree with is mass integration between countries, it would look as if Britain would be less affected than other EU countries since we are not on the continent, but its not. Preventing the dissolution of our culture is important, just as tolerance towards others is. This is not to say I wish to cut Britain off from the rest of the world, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that I wish to work together with them, however if Britain wants to stand firm in its position in the world we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be walked over by such organizations as the EU.

 

 

 

Economically speaking, having a universal language prevents all forms of bureaucracy, and therefore wasted money. We live now in a freer world, in times before Latin was the language between intellectuals, books are so on were not available to the rest of the population. De-globalizing English would have the same effect; too much of the world relies upon English to talk to people from different cultures and different continents. EverythingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s available in English because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the quickest and easiest way to promote something to the highest number of people (specifically in the western world) in the cheapest way possible. As we face many problems with the world, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d say it is going to be increasingly attractive to have a universal language throughout the world.