|
 |
English as the universal language | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Envinyatar Diglot Senior Member Guatemala Joined 5540 days ago 147 posts - 240 votes  Speaks: Spanish*, English Studies: Modern Hebrew | Message 10 of 206 18 October 2009 at 7:31am | IP Logged | ||
|
1. YES. Like Maaku said, it's almost the universal language by now. I don't see non-english speaking countries becoming the economical and/or technological superpowers soon (not even China, Japan or Latin America) so it seems English came to stay.
2. Although I'm a language enthusiast I'll answer that with a YES. We're living in the Information Era and a common language is becoming necessary. I think that in the future there will be an universal diglossia, being English the H language and regional speech as L language. Humanity is about to complete a full circle that started in Babel some millennia ago! And to Skeeterses, that's the price you native English speakers will have to pay for being the guys who dated the prom queen. Edited by Envinyatar on 18 October 2009 at 7:32am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| maaku Senior Member United States Joined 5578 days ago 359 posts - 562 votes Speaks: English* | Message 12 of 206 18 October 2009 at 10:38am | IP Logged | ||
This is getting to be a little bit off topic, but I find it interesting that every time the question "will X replace English as the international language" the discussion turns to forecasting the next political and economic superpowers. But really, what does that selecting an international language? In every field people at the forefront are doing research and reporting about it in English. It is the universal language of science and technology that drives economic progress and supports political power. It is the common language of translations--except for very specialized fields or historical data, if a work exists at all it's probably available in English. If in 50 years China is the only superpower, I guarantee you even the Chinese will still learn English as an auxiliary language. To not do so is to turn your back on the past century of progress in every field, which is primarily recorded in English. English has real inertial mass independent of the political or economic status of English-speaking nations. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| 鳳凰 Newbie China Joined 5525 days ago 5 posts - 5 votes Studies: English | Message 13 of 206 18 October 2009 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | ||
2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| drfeelgood17 Bilingual Hexaglot Groupie United Kingdom Joined 6453 days ago 98 posts - 117 votes Speaks: English*, Tagalog*, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Japanese, Latin, Arabic (Written) | Message 14 of 206 18 October 2009 at 2:39pm | IP Logged | ||
|
1 - It probably already is (...using your definition of "universal").
2 - No, because I prefer linguistic diversity to the dreadful uniformity that globalisation brings, whatever its supposed economic benefits. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6015 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 15 of 206 18 October 2009 at 2:45pm | IP Logged | ||
That's a rather Eurocentric* view though, isn't it? Have you any idea how difficult English is for an East Asian? While it may be hard for us to learn to identify tones as basic phonemic units, it's not really any easier for them to learn a language without question particles and where tone carries a grammatical or emphatic function. * Eurocentric in terms of language. Most of America (the landmass) is linguistically European. 5 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Rikyu-san Diglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 5532 days ago 213 posts - 413 votes Speaks: Danish*, English Studies: German, French | Message 16 of 206 18 October 2009 at 3:21pm | IP Logged | ||
|
1.Is English on the cusp of becoming the world's first truly universal language?
2.Is such an outcome desirable? What will the consequences be? My take on this: 1) There is no doubt that English is studied and spoken in many places around the world. But I am open to believe that Sanskrit was the first truly universal language. In our modern world, English is a likely candidate - but there are other languages as well that might take over English depending on what happens in the world. And I would prefer Sanskrit to English any day, any time. Compared to Sanskrit... English simply does not measure up to it. 2) Is it desirable? I would first of all like to point our attetion to Cainntear's and Fenh Huang's posts above which I agree with. I don't think that linguistc imperialism is any good and I prefer a global world that is multi-polar, multi linguistic, multi cultural and anti-imperialistic. This has many facets, and I will just mention one here: the export of silly and dumbing Western popculture where the bottom is nowhere to be seen. English is not only a medium of communication in the business world, it is also a medium of cultural imperialism, bestowed upon unsuspecting populations, mesmerized by burgers, colas, and "freedom". I am afraid that English and popculture will go hand in hand for the time being, and I am not in favour of this. There is also another issue of what we are actually capable of sharing when we try to communicate across a language barrier. If a Dane and a Chinese business man communicates in English, both of them would have had to struggle to learn the common language. Let us say that they want to communicate about cultural practices that cultivate people and allow them to escape the hedonic treadmill and they want to share their experiences from their respective cultures. The Dane might talk about our Vedic past as it is coded in the Eddas, the Chinese might talk about the Confucian Analects. They might talk about the importance of respect or collaboration. What is the depth of the conversation? They might reach some kind of shared understanding - but how deep? I happen to assume that the Chinese culture and way of doing things/thinking about things is in a fundamental way different from mine. And I am not sure how much effort it will take for me to actually be able to shift from my Danish/Western perspective into something that is authentically Chinese. I believe it is possible, but only with a lot of effort. A high level of proficiency in English will only help me to some extent, and there is a risk that I might never arrive. Compare the Sanskrit hymns of the Baghavad Gita in Sanskrit and the Haiku of Basho in Japanese with their English translations... they simply do not convey the same experience. You absolutely cannot understand the Vedas by studying the English translations because the English language (or any other language for that matter) simply do not resonate the meaning of the hymns, only Sanskrit does. Being able to speak English does not guarantee that one can communicate below a certain level of depth or that one can understand what is communicated. It Basho's frog at the ancient pond leaping into the sound of water or just "leaping, water's sound?" In other words, what is at risk is that experiences that are coded in one culture and language will be lost in translation, leaving us all with "effective communication" but effective communication with less substance, less value and more empty calories. But efficient, that we are. And the frog is not leaping into water's sound but into a burger, soon to be thrown away, like everything else of value, in the nearest garbage bin. Edited by Rikyu-san on 18 October 2009 at 3:38pm 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
