Interesting article on global English

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:44 am

English isn't managing to sweep all else before it -- and if it ever does become the universal language, many of those who speak it won't understand one another

It is hard to predict, actually.
I am surprised at the writer's use of won't in what is only a wild
speculation. The sentence would sound better with a may or might.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:47 am

I think many can always be used safely to soften statements. It doesn't mean most. It could range from hundreds of people to millions.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:44 am

Yeah, many is a softener, but the writer is still not safe, as the
won't sounds too hard when surmising.
I hope I don't sound to be nit-picking, but many may not.... is what
sounds like safe writing to me.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:45 am

jotham wrote:I think many can always be used safely to soften statements. It doesn't mean most. It could range from hundreds of people to millions.

Which do you think it refers to here?

English isn't managing to sweep all else before it -- and if it ever does become the universal language, many of those who speak it won't understand one another.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:05 am

jotham wrote:
I think many can always be used safely to soften statements. It doesn't mean most. It could range from hundreds of people to millions.

Which do you think it refers to here?

After hearing about Machjo's experience translating English to English, it can't be too low.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:21 am

jotham wrote:
jotham wrote:
I think many can always be used safely to soften statements. It doesn't mean most. It could range from hundreds of people to millions.

Which do you think it refers to here?
After hearing about Machjo's experience translating English to English, it can't be too low.

I think it was never intended to be too low. Whether it's a good prediction or not is another thing.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:00 am

I think it is an accurate prediction. The problem is that most amongst the many who won't understand each other won't know it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:58 am

I think it is an accurate prediction.

And your thinking is based on...?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:16 pm

And your thinking is based on...?

Experience.

One day I went to the flat of my Arabic teacher (we swopped Arabic and English lessons) and asked him if he could come down to the shop at the bottom and translate for me.

When we got there he said to me:"But this man's a Pakistani? What do you want a translator for? I don't speak Urdu and he doesn't speak Arabic."

"No," I said. I want you to translate from my English into his English. Tell him I want a light-bulb like this one and I need a receipt."

"Lightbulb sim-sim with fatura." Immediate understanding.

Remember I do most of my day-to-day affairs dealing with people who speak English as a Second Language, either with TCNs in Saudi Arabia or Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka. Misunderstandings are the order of the day. When you don't have sufficient command of the language you often leave things unsaid rather than asking for clarification. So it becomes very easy for two people to have different ideas about what has been agreed on.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:17 pm

"No," I said. I want you to translate from my English into his English. Tell him I want a light-bulb like this one and I need a receipt."

Maybe if you go down that shop day after day, you'll both understand each other. Does he understand your English?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:24 am

I now speak differently when talking to people whose English is a little flakey. I'll be having a mobile phone conversation speaking pidgin and others who are listening look at me like I've gone mad

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:27 am

Stephen Jones wrote:I now speak differently when talking to people whose English is a little flakey. I'll be having a mobile phone conversation speaking pidgin and others who are listening look at me like I've gone mad

I do the same. Many do. That's why I think folks, in different situations, will always find "an English" they can use together.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:01 pm

That's why I think folks, in different situations, will always find "an English" they can use together.

The problem is twofold. Firstly there is the fact that there will different L1 interferences that mean the same English words may have very different meanings, and nuances may be presumed that are not there. Secondly there is the problem of too little information, caused by the fact that speaking in L2 is painful.

Look at this interchange from today:
SJ: "Did you get the cement?"
Now which of these two replies is more likely from my factotum?
(a)F: "Yes, coming."
(b)F: "Yes, I've ordered the cement and paid for it, but the Landmaster driver was busy, so I'm going to go down to the shop later and try and find another Landmaster."

Machjo · Post by **Machjo** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:18 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:I now speak differently when talking to people whose English is a little flakey. I'll be having a mobile phone conversation speaking pidgin and others who are listening look at me like I've gone mad

Interesting.

I've observed the asme among English speakers from different countreis, including myself! The order of the day is, when communication breaks down, speak in broken English. And if that fails, well, at least you tried.

Ah, gotta love English!

Machjo · Post by **Machjo** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:32 pm

English is dominant because of Anglo-American principles of capitalism and the free market with its ensuing prosperity.

The good old British Empire, backed by Her Majesty's Royal Navy, helped a little too. Remember, the sun never set on the British Empire. But the colonists retorted, 'because the Son doesn't trust it in the dark.'

Do you honestly think the Filipines would be as English as it is today if it weren't for US colonialism? Heck, even their filipino now sounds like broken English!

Do you think Hong Kong would be as English as it is now without its acquisition after the Opium wars? How quickly we forget!

Wasn't it it Gandhi who said: to give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them.'? Would he have said that if capitalism was all there was to it? Come on, seriously? Socialism and capitalism have nothing to do with it. As they say, a language is a dialect with an army behind it.

France and a good many European countries cling to their socialism as though it were superior to free markets; this German model predates Hitler, encouraged Hitler, and finally continued after Hitler. (There was a brief free-market period after the war.) In France, Sarkozy seems to be the first president that talks of embracing the free market, and we'll see how successful he is at implementing it, and how it affects and bolsters the status of France and French---just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's free-market revolution bolstered the status of Britain, America, and English.

English was well on its way long before Reagan and Thatcher. Had the sun never set on the Filipino Empire, we'd all be debating this issue in anad about Filipino.

Neither capitalism nor socialism have anything to do with it.

Teacher Discussion Forums

Interesting article on global English

Re: Interesting article on global English