176 messages over 22 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 ... 21 22 Next >>
lichtrausch Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 5946 days ago 525 posts - 1072 votes Speaks: English*, German, Japanese Studies: Korean, Mandarin
| Message 121 of 176 02 June 2014 at 1:39am | IP Logged |
James29 wrote:
Peter, I like your reference to peace. If the progression you outline is done peacefully without anyone being forced by anyone else to learn/use English against their will what is the problem? Everyone making the decision for themselves if they want to learn/use English... what is wrong with that? Maybe I am wrong, but I am not aware of anyone who is forced to learn English.
|
|
|
Hundreds of millions of children around the world are forced to study English in order to graduate from high school/Gymnasium/whatever. Mostly it's for their own good, but they are being forced to do it.
3 persons have voted this message useful
| James29 Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5361 days ago 1265 posts - 2113 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: French
| Message 122 of 176 02 June 2014 at 1:40am | IP Logged |
There are plenty of people who survive just fine in the US knowing only Spanish, or Chinese, or various African languages. I have never heard of anyone being forced to know English or being punished for not knowing it. I have never heard of any business owner in the US who was not allowed to operate a business only in a foreign language. There certainly may be very big incentives or motivations to learn/know English... but that is exactly the point! If people are learning English because there are huge benefits in it for them, that is a good thing!
Other countries that have mandatory English in their schools do it because that is what their people demand. That is somehow a bad thing? And... still, they are not proficient. I have spoken to numerous English high school teachers from Spain and many say the same thing... English is required, but nobody learns anything.
The argument that English is getting forced down people's throats nowadays is silliness.
I don't know what the word is for it, but it strikes me as odd to have people who usually all speak English and have so many opportunities in life say to poor people in developing countries who are very poor... "keep your culture... you should not learn English... the "world" will be better off if your language and culture survive without being contaminated by English... we don't really care that you want to learn English to find a job and eat."
There certainly can be some exceptions to the rule, but it seems so painfully obvious that English is dominant because people WANT to learn it.
1 person has voted this message useful
| PeterMollenburg Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5462 days ago 821 posts - 1273 votes Speaks: English* Studies: FrenchB1
| Message 123 of 176 02 June 2014 at 1:42am | IP Logged |
A nice set of logical responses, some decent food for thought. Thanks for sharing guys, this thread has been
very interesting indeed. There are some individual comments I'm still intending on responding to yet. All in all
I agree ppl learn English because they want to in general. Aren't languages sooo bloody interesting!
1 person has voted this message useful
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6583 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish
| Message 124 of 176 02 June 2014 at 3:20am | IP Logged |
Most people who are simply "interested" never move beyond A1.
1 person has voted this message useful
| kanewai Triglot Senior Member United States justpaste.it/kanewai Joined 4875 days ago 1386 posts - 3054 votes Speaks: English*, French, Marshallese Studies: Italian, Spanish
| Message 125 of 176 02 June 2014 at 3:53am | IP Logged |
This should keep you all busy for awhile: a study out of the UK on the future of
English:
EnglishNext
Though ... sorry, Peter ... it's going to refute almost every single one of your
points. On the other hand, you might actually like the conclusions (that international
English dominance is diminishing rapidly):
- The loss of smaller languages is a result of modernity: the trend started in 1500,
and has little to do with the rise of any one language, colonialism, or imperialism.
- The impact of English on language extinction loss is small. English's rise as a
lingua franca had a much greater impact on the other major, world languages (Mandarin,
French, Spanish, Dutch). It was a battle at the top, mostly between French and English.
- English dominance is declining rapidly. In 2000 50% of internet activity was in
English. In 2005 it was down to 32%. There are similar trends in business.
- Mandarin is rapidly becoming the second language of choice in E. Asia (ironically, to
the detriment of other Chinese dialects).
- Balancing this is the fact that English is still seen as a "gateway language" to
economic development.
-"Global English" might be a new phase in the language's development, and is no longer
tied to England or the US.
- And my favorite: the "cost" of learning English as a second language is low, and the
potential benefits are high. This will work in favor of keeping English as a major
lingua franca. However, the costs of a native English speaker learning another
language are higher, and the potential economic benefits are lower. This partially
explains why so few Brits/Americans/Aussies et al. become fluent in a second language -
most of us don't need to, and only do it if we want to.
And so here's the paradox: English as a lingua franca can actually isolate native
English speakers from the wider global culture.
---------------
This is a really rough summary of items that caught me eye, or made me ponder (I had no
idea English was only 32% of the internet, or at how rapidly it's changing). The full
article is well worth a read, and I'm sure that others might pull different conclusions
than I did.
Edited by kanewai on 02 June 2014 at 3:56am
6 persons have voted this message useful
| Solfrid Cristin Heptaglot Winner TAC 2011 & 2012 Senior Member Norway Joined 5320 days ago 4143 posts - 8864 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, Spanish, Swedish, French, English, German, Italian Studies: Russian
| Message 126 of 176 02 June 2014 at 5:57am | IP Logged |
PeterMollenburg wrote:
In my opinion I feel a possible English language future could go like this (more
based
on Europe than anywhere else):
1)More and more European companies will use English as their working language (this has
started already).
2) More and more universities offer courses in English to attract international
students in an ever more global world (already happening- recent debates in France over
this very thing)
3) In a strive to remain more competitive schools in some European countries begin to
teach more and more via the medium of English (as opposed to actually having English
classes per sé altho they will prob still exist). This has already been suggested in
Germany.
4) Eventually almost all busines, science, commerce, education is done in English due
the the globalized competitive nature of capitalism demanding the same common market
approach to doing business.
5) More and more music, books, newspapers, websites, etc are dominated by English due
to people wanting to learn, wanting to reach the global audience, and simply because
many avenues of life now cater to English (business, science etc).
6) Students and children begin speaking more and more English with each other at home,
outside their work place and school, as do work collegues in European countries.
7) More countries consider adopting English as an additional official language after
the teaching of it spreads- French Africa may become Anglicised depending on the
affordability to swap over and the possible gains, benefits include now doing business
with a ridiculous number of chinese businessmen who now speak English. Some countries
have shown evidence of this change already. Egypt, Lebanon, Rwanda for ex (not
necessarily francophone countries but have dropped the importance of French in place of
English because they want to be competitive and children like it because of music and
Hollywood). Rwanda actually changed their official language, and this was not
necessarily a business decision but to snub France- however that's a whole different
story in its own right.
7) People across Europe feel ever more comfortable using English everyday and their own
national languages languish as they are no longer used in business, IT, marketing,
eductation and so on. They may not die out quickly if at all, but they will certainly
languish if not very thoroughly protected along the lines of Québec. ie Being more lax
and allowing anglicisms into the language will eventually simply result in hybrid
versions of national languages as ppl use English in most walks of life then use some
of their language in other areas which is borrowing English words rapidly. People will
see it as rediculous to try to stem the tide of English loan words entering their
language.
8) A global official English language is introduced and standardized.
9) We run out of oil- voilà welcome back to a language renaissance period ;)
Okay okay throw your spears at me, throw your petrol bombs, hate on me. I gots no lover
for player haters, word, for realz, know what i'm sayin? Peace out |
|
|
I am highly skeptical to number 4, I have no idea why number 9 is on the list (I do not know your time frame
here - is it 10 years, 30 years , 100 years?) and number 7 also sounds fishy to me, but other than that I think
you make a lot of valid points.
What we need to keep in mind, though, is that a lot of the phenomena you are describing concern only a
fraction of the population. Scandinavia is along with the Netherlands possibly the countries in the world with
the highest amount of non English native yet English proficient speakers, but even here only a few are truly
proficient. Almost everyone can muster some kind of English, ranging from a few sentences to full fluency,
but you will find lots of people in remote valleys, or even in the big cities who cannot or will not speak English.
And I suspect that even in a time frame of a 50 years, few countries will go beyond that level.
Even if we can speak English, it will still be easier to speak our own language. I have had an American
staying in my home over the last couple of weeks, and everyone speaks English to him, but the rest of the
conversation in the room still goes on in Norwegian, even if we can all speak English. And inevitably, at some
point everyone will revert into Norwegian, before we catch ourselves, and remember to go into English again
to include him.
Again, I would need to know which time frame you are thinking of, to know the accuracy of your predictions,
but given how resistant languages are I am nowhere near as concerned as you are. English will become
even more important, and it will provide a number of languages with loan words, but unlike you, I do not see
that as a bad thing. In my ideal world, the Scandinavian situation would become the norm. Most people speak
English, but they keep their own language.
Could you imagine how many interesting users we could have on HTLAL from all over the world if that were
the case? :-)
2 persons have voted this message useful
| PeterMollenburg Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5462 days ago 821 posts - 1273 votes Speaks: English* Studies: FrenchB1
| Message 127 of 176 02 June 2014 at 2:43pm | IP Logged |
Gemuse wrote:
PeterMollenburg wrote:
American Indians, Australian aboriginals, Inca's were all doing fine before being
forced to become a part of a larger invasive culture. They'd be fine today too had they
never met white men and the perceived benefits white man brought along.
|
|
|
White Guilt. So this is what this is about.
|
|
|
Okay, apology completely ignored then. No, this thread is about language dominance,
many of my arguments are based on globalization which I think includes the settling of
new continents and the languages they brought with them as the new cultures overun the
older ones and predominantly steamrolled them replacing their languages by force and
sheer numbers. You had nothing to do with that so I don't expect you to feel guilty.
Gemuse wrote:
We have the following two cases.
A. All races/cultures equal.
In that case someone else (Chinese/Arabs) would have taken the same imperialistic (and
maybe even more destructive) path as Caucasians. |
|
|
I feel all people are equal no matter what you do in life. But it's a fact that some
cultures are more destructive towards other cultures or the environment than others.
I'm not judging that morally simply analysing the traits.
Gemuse wrote:
B. Something special about the white culture (say due to which they were able to invade
other cultures).
If you claim this difference, then you also have to consider the possibility that this
difference might have made it likely that other cultures would not have developed
science and technology and medicine and farming to the same extent in the
same time-frame. Without modern medicine and farming, the world population would be
several billions less (billions would not have died, rather millions would have
died due to disease, plagues and famine, cutting off their (billions populated)
progeny lines).
Now, you may argue that these billions *should not* have existed, and their ancestors
should have perished due to ill health and food scarcity, and for this I dont have a
response.
|
|
|
Honestly i'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here and i'm not saying that to be
smart, I would be happy to have it clarified. I'll attempt a response nevertheless. I
have no idea if white people have something 'special' to set them apart in order to
have gone down the path to discovery if you will. I doubt it, I think it was probably
more of a chance thing and that their particular culture (European) or environments
encouraged the search for new places and things.
Gemuse wrote:
The white legacy does not just mean slavery, colonization, Spanish Inquisition, Hitler;
it also includes penicillin, vaccines, modern farming, Maxwell's equations, Newtonian
dynamics and semiconductors which have literally changed the world.
It is a tragedy that the West views STEM with disdain. |
|
|
sctroyenne wrote:
Gemuse wrote:
The white legacy does not just mean slavery,
colonization, Spanish Inquisition, Hitler;
it also includes penicillin, vaccines, modern farming, Maxwell's equations, Newtonian
dynamics and semiconductors which have literally changed the world. |
|
|
You make it sound like in order to have the good, it was inevitable for the bad to have
happened. Could Europe and the Americas (and the whole world) have built flourishing
economies without resorting to forced labor? Could we still have semiconductors today
had the American government not taken Native American children from their families and
beat their mother tongues out of out of them? And it's not as if only the best came
from this cultural dominance - there are many problems with modern farming and diets
that we still need to resolve and many people are turning back to old world food
traditions to address the issues that modern diets/SAD have created.
|
|
|
I agree. It's worth pointing out the aboriginals again. During my health studies I
wrote an assignment on the disparity of health compared to the rest of the Australian
population as well as the effects of the western culture on their culture. Despite
modern medecine and other such advantages aboriginal life expectancy today is close to
20 years less than the rest of the Australian population. This has resulted from a
myriad of conditions which came via the new culture. They are not better off with all
the conveniences of modern life. To think that other cultures are better off with a
modernized society is ethnocentric and simply wrong, as the only people that should
make that judgemet are those who have gone through the changes themselves and belong to
those cultures. I'm sure there are cases where many cultural groups have been improved
drastically and had their life expectancies increased but that isn't always the case.
'Modern' farming is NOT healthy for humans. Unless it's free range and organic, because
once again we've messed with nature too much. Have you seen where the meat comes from
in American McDonald's burgers and the power these food companies have? Their meat is
so bad that to avoid food poisoining outbreaks they spray deadly poisons on them.
Their is research that suggests that we are healthier without grains, dairy and many
things farmed. Evidence points to a fats and proteins WITHOUT the processed rubbish
which came along with modern farming ideal for health.
Why have the rates of cancer sky rocketed in modern society when i'm certain many
centuries ago the rates would have been much lower (earlier statistics going back
decades or a hundred years show this).
There is so much opposition to vaccination out there in there world. If you consider
that each congressman (not sure right word- those that pass bills for the ppl in the
US) has the equivalent number of 3 pharmaceutical lobbyists per each one them is it any
wonder we all think modern medecine and vaccines are fantastic. All major diseases were
in rapid decline in westernized countries BEFORE the introduction of vaccines. Do you
know that a baby injected with the hepatitis vaccine just after birth is subjected to
aluminium levels 5 to 10 times higher the safe recommended limits set in America by
doctors. Not to mention the fact that so many people vaccinated still get the diseases
they are vaccinated against, all the allergies caused by vaccines and the rates of
autism skyrocketing? It's wrong to think they boost your immune system. There is a
mountain of evidence out there by DOCTORS that proves vaccines do not work, wreak havoc
on the immune system and neurological systems. Now go back to the congress situation
and follow the money, pharmaceutical giants OWN politicians who influence media and
churn out BS day in day out and how bad we are if we don't have vaccines. Obviously I
am not in support of vaccines.
Oh and do you know how many top politicians in the US (and making their influential way
into Europe too) are linked to Monsanto? Arguably the most hated company in the world
who genetically modifies crops feeds cancer causing grains to the populace (French lab
tests on rats proved this). It's all good for you tho coz that's what the media mostly
says, and the media is directed by dollars, and Monsanto has their dollars flowing
everywhere they can to influence everyone they can.
Nor am I in support of modern medecine in the area of most (not necessarily all)
pharmceutical medications- always on the look out for a 'cure' when all they really
want is to keep people buying their medications so they can keep influencing government
and driving policy while the people are kept in the dark brainwashed by the popaganda
machines aka television. Ever heard of food grade hyrdogen pyroxide, liposomal vitamin
C and ozone in the area of health? Did you know that the FDA squashed trials of a
product that had NO side effects and cured HIV patients in the decades ago as they were
lobbied by a company who went on to sell a product (after being approved of course)
called AZT which you might be familiar with. It won't cure you but hey at least you'll
buy it. There are countless other options that you will never hear about that are CHEAP
and have cured advanced cancers WITHOUT side effects.
I could go on but i'm sure i'm going to be absolutely smashed for writing this stuff,
but it proves a point and that is NOT everything you assume to be good for people
really is. Modern culture is so much at odds against both the Earth and the human race.
In fact it's worth digging beyond the surface for the truth behind most things, as we
are fed so much rubbish.
Edit: I'm not going to respond to comments on this topic as I have ranted and it's not
really the place for it, I should've held my tongue but I couldn't help it, I feel like
people should not accept things for what they appear to be and that's really my
message, I don't want to debate any of it as I know there already is strong opposition
to what I have to say, so there's really no point but just to accept 99 out of 100
people will not agree with any of this.
Edited by PeterMollenburg on 02 June 2014 at 2:48pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
| Chris Ford Groupie United States Joined 4729 days ago 65 posts - 101 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Portuguese
| Message 128 of 176 02 June 2014 at 3:14pm | IP Logged |
kanewai wrote:
- English dominance is declining rapidly. In 2000 50% of internet activity was in
English. In 2005 it was down to 32%. There are similar trends in business.
|
|
|
Question: why do you think that a decline in English as a percentage of internet activity is an indicator of a
decline in English usage overall? Increased usage of the internet is an indicator of development and
modernization in a country; ironically that kind of modernization could just as easily be taken as an indicator that
a country's economy has developed to the point where it's attracting foreign investment, manufacturing, trade,
etc., which actually increases the demand for English skills in that country.
Basically, just because a country is using the internet in its own language, that doesn't mean they aren't also
using English internet sites as well for work or school. What I believe is happening (based on my own observations
and experiences) is that more people in developing countries are learning English, while also preferring to use
their native languages for social media, entertainment, or communicating with colleagues in their own country.
Thus, the percentage of the internet in that native language inevitably increases (because there was little to no
content in that language before), even if the people from that country are also using more English.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.4531 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|