"The world has opened up for us, and English is its language."
This article blew me away. I used to think about globalization in terms of technology and economy. How could I have neglected language? Check out these facts:
"Eighty percent of the electronically stored information in the world is in English; 66 percent of the world's scientists read in it..."
"English-language teachers point to the rise of Microsoft English, where computer users are drafting letters advised by the Windows spell check and pop-up style guides."
"All languages are works in progress. But English's globalization, unprecedented in the history of languages, will revolutionize it in ways we can only begin to imagine. In the future...there could be a tri-English world, one in which you could speak a local English-based dialect at home, a national variety at work or school, and international Standard English to talk to foreigners."
This is an unstoppable force. It's interesting that the article points out that the worry went from the quashing of other languages and cultures to the loss of "perfect" American or British English. All in all fascinating, and sobering that I was born into the de facto global language as a native speaker. Especially given that non-native speakers now outnumber us three to one.
Posted by George at March 4, 2005 04:05 PMOn one level this puzzles me - becuase it makes me wonder how much of a bridge this forms to an eventual true universal auxillary language. I mean this almost advocates for poor use of an established language in order to build fluency and communication levels. Is that the answer? I'm hesitant to agree with it, and so I wonder how this emergent means of language merging actually plays into building a world wide universal language...
Posted by: Abby at March 7, 2005 10:59 AMAbs, I feel like the process is organic and beyond control. At this point it seems English is not the bridge but is emerging as the universal language itself. As far as "poor" use goes I really think that's subjective. Undoubtedly the Brits consider American English poor, for example. But more than that, it's that any language is constantly evolving. What's written down in the grammar and style books of today was heresy in the recent past. Witness "amoeba" becoming "ameba" in 8th grade science books and the accepted use of "cactuses" rather than "cacti." This is not to say I don't pride myself on the use of "proper" spelling and grammar, but when I take a step back it seems more important that the ideas behind the words make it back and forth between two people rather than that their mode of communication adheres to a strict set of arbitrarily evolving rules.
Posted by: george at March 7, 2005 02:47 PMThis reminds me of a conference my old research professor went to in Japan. He said he was going to give it in English, as he does most of the time at international meetings (he is Russian). He explained to me that most international meetings are being held in English no matter the location. This really started after WWII when the center of scientific research and discovery was moved away from Germany. I think it is kind of interesting, in the past specific subjects have had "international" languages before (French was formerly the European language of Diplomacy until about WWI), but now it seems English is evolving into something a bit new. I am interested in continuing to watch these developments.
Posted by: Scopi at March 9, 2005 02:59 PM