The Future of English

"Well, if you live in Europe, or pretty much in any non-English speaking country, almost every profession requires bilingualism."

Dear Sanja,

I don't believe this. Hardly anyone I met in the Latin countries I visited spoke passable English but I do know the rates of bilingualism in these countries is low. In fact, it is almost on par with English speaking countries.

The necessity of bilingualism appears only to apply to white-collar professions but than again, only to a limited extent. In the upper rungs, the proficiency in a second language demanded is greater and it is where the true bilinguals are found, with English alone being the second language.

I too think you overestimate the bilingual rates of Europe.

John wrote: >>I don't believe English is going to take over the world . During Roman times, a lot of barbarians kept on using their native languages .... <<

This is basically true. Some barbarian languages were submerged by Greek or Latin but others survived to become modern day Welsh, Breton, Basque, Berber and Albanian. One barbarian tongue, Pictish, seems to have disappeared (c. 1000 A.D) under pressure from other barbarian languages Scottish Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse rather than from the Latin of the Romans.

Actually, bilingualism assumes two languages are spoken equally well, so, we have all overestimated its extent.

Dear Joe,

Thanks for your interesting posts, but there are some points where I cannot fully agree with you.

>>> I just think it's hard to establish a language that is associated with a certain culture as an "international" language. <<<

Maybe, in your mind, English is associated with only one culture, but this language is spoken in many countries and on different continents. Even when we speak about one country such as the US, we can see noticeable cultural different between its states. Besides, you should not forget a fair amount of emigrants, who also bring their culture and traditions on the American soil.

So, at very lest, English opens the door to all cultures existing in the English speaking world. But I believe it is more than that. You can use English to communicate with people from other countries too, particularly, with people from small countries such as Neitherland. You can learn many interesting things about its people, their life-style, etc... And if you develop real interest in this country and people living there, then you may decide to learn its language too.

>>> But with the English language comes the mainly American culture, and that carries with it more political and cultural implications than people recognize. <<<

About connection between language and culture, I said above; so now I want to focus on cultural and politic. I really don't like your suggestion that culture and politics go together almost inseparable. They are two different words in my vocabulary. To make sure, I have checked the definition of the word 'culture' in the Oxford dictionary:

culture = the arts or other manifestation of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively

Now, looking at the current US administration, I cannot see anything remotely reminding me intellectual achievement. Not much better were things with the previous administration. Probably, if we tried to find a point in US history, where the phrase "human intellectual achievement" can be applied to US politics, we would have to go back in history to the days of Forefathers. In the same time, there is significant cultural development in the US over the last century. If in the 19th century many Americans who wanted to recieve the best possible education went to one of European countries, now many European students come to the US to study.

>>> And that, I think, is a cause for much of the backlash. <<<

I do not see any reason to think so. If your statement was true, then we would see more backslash in countires where knowledge of English is higher, while it seems the countrary is true -- Anglophobia and Antiamericanism are higher among countries with low knowledge of English. I think the real cause of this so-called 'backslash' is clash of economical and political interests among different countries. Politics use the idea of protection of national identity to herd people in the useful for them direction.

>>> People get afraid that their language, and as a result, their culture, are in danger, and so they fight English. <<<

I think this belief is ridiculous. Probably, there are some hicks who really think so or use that as an excuse for not learning any foreign language, but any reasonable person can easily see foolishness of that belief. Learning a second language is not going to eliminate one's mother tongue. On the contrary, usually, people who know foreign languages are more careful and accurate in the use of their native language too. So I do not see how English can threat to any other language in any way but making it more reach.

>>> Many people learn English the way Americans learn Spanish in high school. <<<

You are probably right here. I said 'probably' because I do not know much about Spanish in American high school. I suspect there is one difference though. ESL students in other countries may have stronger 'intrumental' motivation (more students consider English important for their future carrier), but they may have even weaker than Americans 'integrative' motivation, which usually develops through communication with native speakers of the language. That is because Americans have much more chances to have a native speaker of Spanish as their teacher than people who learn English in some countries, such as China, Russia, etc. You probably have no idea how it feels to be a student in class where ESL teacher struggles to speak English. Nothing can be more demotivating than that.

In fact, the whole point of my previous post was that it does not matter who many people learn English as a second language now, but how many can use it efficiently. And I believe that classes, where a foreign language is forced on students, are mostly useless or even harmful.

>>> I think that the best possible scenario would be that English would be a peer in a world where several languages were recongnized as global languages. <<<

And who will define what languages to be recognized as global and why? In fact, I see nothing good in this artificial separation on global and non-global languages, and it does not solve the underlying need to have one language, which allows people from different countries to communicate together. It's happened naturally that English took the role of an international language (at least, there is hardly any other language that can seriously to pretend on this role now). That does not mean that other language are inferior to English; it is just that one was needed, not many. So it seems to me that all talks about so-called 'global languages' is political crap intended to satisfy chauvinistic feelings of big nations, which want to show to small nations that their language has a higher rank.

If you hope to evoke more interest among native English speakers to other languages through declaring some languages as global, you are probably mistaken. I think the real motivation to learn a language comming from the need of communication, not from the fact that someone somewhere declared that particular language as a global one.

Finally, I would like to agree with anyone who suggests that ideally people should learn as many languages as possible, but there are real world constraints, such as time. If languages are not essential part of your professional activity, it is often difficult to find time to learn even one foreign language. I have learned English for more five years now, and it would probably take another five or even ten years before I will feel satisfied with my proficiency in it. Of course, if I lived in an English speaking country, or had a talent for languages, or just started its learning at younger age, the process might be a bit faster. Anyway, it is many years. So I do not think that I will ever find enough free time to learn a third language good enough to communicate in it freely, unless I moved in the country where this language is naturally spoken. That is why I consider so important to have one language that allows people to speak across language barriers.

Dear Sanja:
Quoting from what you said in your message: "I too think you overestimate the bilingual rates of Europe."
Being bilingual doesn't mean being bilingual in the National State Language and English. Being bilingual means you speak two languages.
40% of the Spanish population actually lives in bilingual areas (over 16 million people) where Catalan, Basque and Galician (very close to Portuguese) are still widely spoken. These languages are actually co-official, meaning all children have to learn the languages from kindergarten on. The Spanish government decided, it's all over today's Spanish press, to ask the European Union to give them official status in Europe as well, at certain levels. The reason is: "they are official, very much alive and have a strong literary use."
It won't make the French Government happy who could have members of Parliament from the French Basque and Catalan areas not speaking in French to the world. If the Corsicans realise they can speak an Italian Standard, with little effort and the Alsatians, German Standard, it explains how France is still the most multi-lingual country in Europe with languages that are spoken out of its borders (I will not forget the Occitans or Bretons "e els amics de Savoia"). The same thing applies to all European countries. The only monolingual country I know of in Western Europe is Portugal (although they have made official "Mirandese" spoken in a few valleys) and perhaps something of the sort happens now in the Balkans as far as official monolingualism is concerned.
If we speak of historical European languages all over Europe there are many more. If we speak of bilingualism in Eastern Europe (where many were taught Russian and speak it fluently, being Slavs)... and so on... and so on...
I guess you get my point and that doesn't change the meaning of "bilingual" to suit it to the knowledge of English.
Another thing is if only 5% or 10% of Latin-language speakers are really proficient speakers of English. I would say a greater number of today's University students in Spain would have an "intermediate level" (from low to high, in that range). How many Germanic-language speakers in Europe are really proficient in, at least, one Romance language and at basic level? I know the Slavs have a knack for languages as the Dutch and Scandinavians.
The fact is English is becoming more and more necessary as a world language but English isn't the only language in the world that makes an individual bilingual.
Thanks God for that!

It's understandable many Europeans of regional areas speak their local dialect and the national language, hence bilingualism. This is hardly the case moving out and heading toward the major cities, such as Paris, Rome, Athens in countries where one official language is taught in public schools. I see this as being case as well, at the workplace, where the only exception would be for a place for English, a genuinely outside language. This would be the preferred choice for a second langauge, but its use would be more restricted to non-verbal communication.

Dear Rule-Meister
You don't seem to know the difference between languages and dialects. I wasn't speaking of dialects. French, Spanish, English or Catalan do have dialects, like all languages in the world.
Cities like Barcelona, Valencia, Palma de Mallorca, Bilbao or Coruña happen to be major Spanish and European cities where their National languages are taught and official. The Spanish Constitution, not me, speaks of "nationalities" within Spain.
At my work place,in the biggest Catalan city and one of the most important cities in Europe, everybody speaks Catalan all the time. We, of course, speak Spanish, French, English and German with our clients.
I trust you will understand I'm just contributing with the reality I know and live. Spanish is as much my everyday language as it is for any English-speaker living in California, although as the official language of Spain we become fluent at an early age. I didn't speak it though when I first went to school.

I know the difference between dialects and languages. You may not have been speaking of dialects, but I was. You, of course, speak Spanish, French, English and German with your clients. I could have guessed this from your views. I also understand this reality and life is particular to you, as Spanish is to some Californians, not everyone however.

>>Dear Sanja:
Quoting from what you said in your message: "I too think you overestimate the bilingual rates of Europe."<<

Jordi, I didn't say that, Rule-meister said it.

Rule-meister, yes, maybe I should have said that most WELL PAID professions in Europe require bilingualism. See, in ex-Yugoslavia most people were not bilingual some 10 or more years ago, but nowadays even here in Bosnia you can hardly find a job advertisement which doesn't require being fluent in English. To be honest, ordinary people on the street still don't really speak English, because not everyone here learnt English, some people learnt French, German or even Russian. I have to say that learning foreign languages here wasn't so important a few years ago, but that has changed. I think that nowadays everyone has to learn English and it has become a high priority. But if you go to some other, more developed European countries, I think that even people who are not university educated will most likely be quite fluent in English.

By the way, Jordi, I thought that by being bilingual you consider being able to speak your native language and one foreign language. That would be my definition of being bilingual, because if you speak more than one language you're not multilingual.

Oops, I meant "if you speak more than one language you're not monolingual". Sorry about that.

Dear Sanja:
I apologise for my quick reading. I agree with your definition of bilingualism. In any case, bilingualism is quite common in many parts of Europe, for political or historical reasons. This is why Official Education Programmes, in my part of the world, are now speaking of trilingualism. English is the third language that is now being taught and children are expected to start learning it at age 8 in the very near future. The possibility of an optional fourth language in High School (mainly French or German) is also a part of the official school curriculum.
Dear Master of the Rules
Since I am a Linguist I perfectly know the differences between dialects and languages and I perfectly know that Catalan is the majority language in Catalonia. After all, I live here.
Those languages that are not official State languages are still languages. If they are dialectal forms (Alsatian, Corsican, for example) they are, technically speaking, dialectal forms of other languages that are not Official languages in the state where they are spoken (German and Italian in those two cases in France.) but official in neighbouring European states.

why do some people claim that German will spread throughout the world along with spanish, arabic and chinese?
Germany is no more that great economic power she was in the 80's.
So why such a prediction?

i enjoy learning languages for the same reason that someone else enjoys drinking alcohol or playing football. it's simply a fun hobby-- a form of entertainment like building boats in glass jars or any of the other silly activities that people do in order to remain sane within this increasingly boring, increasingly complacent little existence.

you don't need to learn a foreign language ever in your life because chances are that most people who set out to learn another language will not succeed in attaining a level of proficiency that is even close to being worth the time they spent learning the language, although we waste our time typing little messages into an online language forum, so i suppose it's all very relative.

you will never need to speak another language, just as you will never be required to solve calculus problems, even though after learning calculus i am astonished at how few people know higher maths. friends tell me that i should know more about computers or politics, but it's all just another area of arcane useless knowledge. you can get on fine with your one language, your one mindset, and your one way of doing everything, because in the end it doesn't matter. what's it all about anyway?

i know i sound a bit like a stoned philosopher, but in truth i am and so i am just offering my inebriated two cents to a confused, anxiety-ridden discussion forum.

i must end by mentioning that i am in love with nearly all aspects of languages and linguistics (aside from the torturously boring phonological material) and that i am not worried about how the world will change linguistically in my lifetime, because i am going to be long gone before anything really tremendous happens, such as the taking over of english, or the loss of cultural identity because of globalization, or the monetary and economic unionization of all the world, or the crumbling of the united states (although i wish that this last scenario would happen quite soon for all of our sakes).

so mine is most seemingly an existentialist or buddhist approach to the whole matter, yet this is demonstrably the case whether this disheartens you or leaves you feeling more secure. dinosaurs ruled the earth, and the history of humans is only three minutes old in terms of the earth's history, so even to speak or fret over such small changes is absurd on all accounts.

Dwayne,

When I wrote regarding the English language being associated with one culture, I wasn't speaking in that English is factually associated with one culture. It is just that in so many parts of the world, English is associated not so much with Britain, or the other former colonies, it's associated with America. And unfortunately the American image the world over is not always a positive one, so when there is a negative backlash against the United States, English, which has been spread to a large extent in recent times due to American culture, is thought of as an accomplice.

I was not tying cultural and political situations together, either. When I said "it has more cultural and political implications" I was talking of two distinct factors, one cultural, the other political. Because just as there is much anti-Americanism because of political events, there has been a backlash against the spread of American culture. This resonates in some places, particularly in the Islamic world but certainly not exclusive to it, perhaps moreso than politics on some levels.

Anyway, as far as Anti-Americanism goes, since anti-Americanism seems to be on the rise in a country such as Canada, where one of the offical languages is English (and almost the entire population, sans for a few immigrants and monolingual Arcadians and Québécois, speak English) So anti-Americanism has nothing to do with if an area is Anglophone or not.

Do keep in mind, Dwayne, that I was not speaking of how I personally feel things should be, but rather that this is how I and others see some behaviors in the world toward English. I think the belief that learning English, or any foreign language, will eliminate the mother tongue is ridiculous. That is why I think it's absurd that in the US so many have this phobia that if the children learn a foreign language it will somehow weaken the importance of English within the American borders. No, rather all this is doing is making the large majority of natural born American citizens monolingual and giving us a huge disadvantage on the world stage.

Now, as far as the global language tangent:

I believe that a language becomes a so-called "global" language naturally, as do you, it seems. English did not become a "globalized" language becuase some group of intellectuals and world leaders gathered and said "let's make English the world's language."

What I was saying is, I think that if other languages in the future, regardless of what they are, naturally rose to become prominent in global use, which is what many linguists believe will indeed happen in the future, it will reinforce English not as this "supreme, ultimate global language" that some proponents have been wishing for, but rather a very crucial, important language that winds up among a few others as universal tools of communication.

I totally agree with you that the desire to learn a languge comes from personal desire to communicate, whether it be for personal or professional reasons. I want to learn some languages for both personal and professional reasons, some exclusively for one or the other.

I think it is wonderful that English has been serving as a tool for people the world over to communicate with one another. In this way, my Dutch friend, who does not speak Arabic, when she has to call up and place a business order in Egypt, can communicate in English with the Egyptian who does not speak Dutch. I, who at the moment do not speak Dutch, can communicate with her and my Dutch relatives.

What I am saying, though, is, in these modern times, we've gone beyond the point of just one language having precedent and you're seeing many
people speaking two or three languages. I'm speaking from an American Anglophone perspective, and that is, we are starting to get to the point where we are taking the weaker role with knowledge of one language. It never hurts to learn another. We happen to already speak English. Everyone else that is a native speaker of another language that learns English therefore speaks at least two. Not all Americans, or all Anglophones for that matter, will ever need to really use another language except for perhaps travel. With Americans especially stereotyped for our lack of cultural knowledge and sensitivity, it certainly doesn't hurt to strengthen our knowledge of the world. Citizens of the European Union have a sense of living in a very international, multicultural world. You would be surprised, despite the fact we in the US all come from different cultural heritages, how isolated many seem to be from that fact.

At the end of your thoughts, I was shocked to learn you learned English as a secondary language. Let me tell you, you write in English beautifully. I don't know how your speech is, but your writing is excellent. I can share your sentiment that you always want to get better though, you can never be good enough in a language, even your native one! Would you mind me asking what your native language is, by the way? Just out of curiousity. :-)

You certainly had quite a bit of debate to offer, I enjoyed responding in turn.