|
I read a great article today in which a bunch of experts gather together to talk about what globalization will do to world languages.
Here are some excerpts, in case you don't want to read the whole thing. Of course, my comments are at the end.
---------
Rudimentary English might still be the most convenient means of
oral or written communication between strangers of different cultures
on planet Earth, but globalization is giving a new (virtual) planetary
presence to hundreds of languages and cultures through millions of Web
sites, mixing text and videos.
The big loser? Grammar.
---------
My friends and colleagues question me from time to time about
whether a website like mine that helps people around the world learn
English is necessarily a good thing.
But last I checked, learning one language doesn't cause you to
forget another. More than half the world plays soccer, but other sports
continue to thrive. Why should languages be any different?
…
Don't underestimate the value of knowing languages other than English
in a globalized world. Nothing makes a trip to Japan better than
knowing Japanese and if you're bidding on a contract in India, the
proposal written in Hindi is sure to stand out. A philosopher who can
read German articles before they're translated has an edge on his peers.
In fact, globalization means that we have more reason than ever to learn a language.
---------
It's obvious that globalization will tend to wipe out smaller
languages and cultures - but if you search the web for "soomaaliya" or
"gabay ka," you'll find more text from the world-wide Somali diaspora
than was ever produced in the horn of Africa. It's obvious that
globalized communications and popular culture will tend to homogenize
local language varieties - but some varieties of English seem to be
diverging more rapidly than ever.
---------
To many people, then, the spread of English seems a positive
thing, symbolizing employment, education, modernity, and technology.
But to plenty of others it seems ominous.
They hold it responsible for grinding down or homogenizing their
identities and interests. It tends to equalize values and desires,
without doing the same for opportunities.
---------
To me, the worst possible consequence of the spread of English is
the potential loss of "culture". But is that really all that bad?
Although our emotions may say that we want to maintain as much of our
"heritage" as possible, does that idea really carry any practical
benefit? Traditional values can be maintained in any language; why does
every country have to maintain a separate "identity?" I don't like to
identify myself as an English speaker or an Urdu speaker or a
Pakistani-American… I'd rather call myself a "human" or a "citizen of
the world."
I think it's ridiculous to resist the changes that will, hopefully,
someday allow us all to communicate better with one another. In a
perfect society, every person will work towards the betterment of the
entire world instead of just thinking about their own ethnic group. The
first step towards that society is to have a common language that
allows us all to talk to each other without losing anything in
translation.
People may say "why does English get to be the world's language?"
Well, I think that question can be answered by the simple fact that
English is easier to implement than any other language. Coming from a
person whose first language is Urdu/Hindi, I'll say right now that I'd
much rather work towards establishing a global English-speaking
community than a global Urdu/Hindi-speaking community… even though over
600 million people already speak Urdu/Hindi, we all know that English is already becoming a global language and it would be crazy to try to change that now.
I think the potential benefits of this change are obvious… can you think of any downsides?
You can see articles right after they're published by visiting the author's blog (click here) or subscribing to his RSS feed (click here). |
tweet this!
