http://www.worldlanguageprocess.org/
I'd come across this website recently and was quite shocked. It seems to be that of an organization experimenting with various ways of making English more available at the grass roots.
A quick scan of the site showed me they're involved in all kinds of things including:
Simplified spelling
Applying Arabic script to the English language
Simplified English that may be incorrect in standard English but still understandable
etc.
It wold seem that it looks less at trying to find better ways to teacyh English and more at how to make English itself easier to learn.
It's target audience seems to be large population centres hat need to aquire an ability to communicate in a short time. The Bajing Olimpics are part of this project.
Overall, I was surprised at the amount of official representation it seems to have attracted!
How do you think the rise of such an artificially modified 'people's English' might influence the language in the long term?
The engineering of English: your thoughts?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
It's not the first time something like this has been tried, and I don't see why this is any more likely to catch oin than anything else. According to their own website, their time line goes back over 40 years, and by their own admission "The world's inhabitants and their leaders have so far shown little (more truthfully - practically no interest so far) in the development of an IAL (International Auxiliary Language)."
In the long term, I can see some form of English taking on the kind of role that Latin had in Medieval Europe, but I can't see it happening by decree; rather, it will happen "naturally" if there is a need for it.
In the long term, I can see some form of English taking on the kind of role that Latin had in Medieval Europe, but I can't see it happening by decree; rather, it will happen "naturally" if there is a need for it.
I'm aware of the long-standing existence of planned auxiliaries, and various degrees of government support for them.
But this organization seems to be different in that it hasn't got a planned language as such but rather creates planned languages for specific purposes on demand. For example, for the Beijing Olimpics, they've created various forms for various trades (ESP but with the added twist of reformed spelling, etc. to make it easy to teach and learn within an extremely short period of time, even among amateurs, while still being recogniseable enough to be understood by a native speaker). An additional example is to apply an Arabic script to English (which I'm sure is not a feature of the variety created for the Beijing Olimpics, but is probably rather for the purposes of Arabs who might needs ESP for spoken communication but needn't bother with the written language, so purhaps we can call it EVSP, English for very specific purposes).
Another difference is government funding. They've gotten a few Canadian government grants already, and it would seem that their research and practical projects all centre around simplifying language artificially for various very specific purposes, each modified language catered to its particular immediate needs (language on demand?).
In that it's an organization that promotes UALs with government funding yet has no UAL of its own, modifying languages as need arises in different circumstances, is quite new as far as I can tell.
I know the Italian, Polish, Hungarian and Chinese governments have given support to Esperanto to varying degrees, even today. But that is different in that they are supporting a particular language. In this project, the Canadian government is supporting the application of the concept within various contexts without supporting any particular language per se.
But this organization seems to be different in that it hasn't got a planned language as such but rather creates planned languages for specific purposes on demand. For example, for the Beijing Olimpics, they've created various forms for various trades (ESP but with the added twist of reformed spelling, etc. to make it easy to teach and learn within an extremely short period of time, even among amateurs, while still being recogniseable enough to be understood by a native speaker). An additional example is to apply an Arabic script to English (which I'm sure is not a feature of the variety created for the Beijing Olimpics, but is probably rather for the purposes of Arabs who might needs ESP for spoken communication but needn't bother with the written language, so purhaps we can call it EVSP, English for very specific purposes).
Another difference is government funding. They've gotten a few Canadian government grants already, and it would seem that their research and practical projects all centre around simplifying language artificially for various very specific purposes, each modified language catered to its particular immediate needs (language on demand?).
In that it's an organization that promotes UALs with government funding yet has no UAL of its own, modifying languages as need arises in different circumstances, is quite new as far as I can tell.
I know the Italian, Polish, Hungarian and Chinese governments have given support to Esperanto to varying degrees, even today. But that is different in that they are supporting a particular language. In this project, the Canadian government is supporting the application of the concept within various contexts without supporting any particular language per se.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Regarding English written in (or with a guide to pronunciation supplied alongside in) Arabic, I'd just call that an ancillary script for learners or "readers" of ESL/EFL; similar thing happens all the time in Japan, less so in China (where there isn't two sets of easily deployable kana).
BTW have you heard of (people like DeFrancis who, albeit in relation to Chinese rather than English, advocate Pinyin before or in preference to hanzi-a policy of) 'digraphia'?
BTW have you heard of (people like DeFrancis who, albeit in relation to Chinese rather than English, advocate Pinyin before or in preference to hanzi-a policy of) 'digraphia'?
I know a little about it, but not in greeat detail.fluffyhamster wrote:Regarding English written in (or with a guide to pronunciation supplied alongside in) Arabic, I'd just call that an ancillary script for learners or "readers" of ESL/EFL; similar thing happens all the time in Japan, less so in China (where there isn't two sets of easily deployable kana).
BTW have you heard of (people like DeFrancis who, albeit in relation to Chinese rather than English, advocate Pinyin before or in preference to hanzi-a policy of) 'digraphia'?