They all speak English

Adam   Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:26 am GMT
Monolingual Britain

They all speak English
Dec 13th 2006
From The Economist print edition

As bilingualism becomes the norm worldwide, the future of English has moved. Prepare yourself for decaffeinated “Globish”





THE image of the Briton abroad, speaking English slowly and loudly in the expectation that eventually the natives will get the idea, is a stereotype with a good deal of truth behind it. According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% of Britons can converse in a language other than their own (only Hungarians did worse). Bad as these figures are, they are flattered by the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than English at home.

The next generation is unlikely to do even this well. Fewer young people are studying languages in school, a trend that has accelerated since 2004, when the government allowed English schools to make foreign languages optional for students aged 14 and over (see chart). Even those who are keen on languages often drop them at this stage now, as schools offer a narrower choice of languages and schedule them against other subjects. Around four in five of all English state schools allow their students to abandon languages at 14 and some private schools are starting to follow suit. In 2006 only half of all students took a foreign-language GCSE exam—the standard test for 16-year-olds.

Rattled by the rush to the exit, in October the education secretary, Alan Johnson, asked Lord (Ron) Dearing, a former boss of the Post Office, to look at the state of language teaching in English schools. His interim report, due on December 14th, is expected to recommend that languages be made compulsory in primary schools but remain optional after the age of 14.

Whatever Lord Dearing's recommendations, the place of languages in the secondary-school curriculum may no longer be the government's to decide. Young people hoping to do a degree at a prestigious university may find themselves having to study a foreign language until at least the age of 16. On December 12th the committee on admissions policy at University College London (UCL) voted to phase in a requirement for all applicants to have a GCSE or equivalent in a modern foreign language. Michael Worton, the committee's chairman, says the idea is to persuade young people—and schools—that studying a language is necessary and worthwhile.

Other universities are also concerned. On December 3rd a letter calling for the government to restore the compulsory status of language teaching after 14 was published in The Observer, a Sunday newspaper. The 50 signatories represented many of the country's top universities, some of which may follow UCL's lead, if they don't like what Lord Dearing has to say.

Nearly a quarter of the world's population speaks some English. That includes around 400m who speak it as their mother tongue and about the same number who speak it fluently as their second language. English is the global language of academic research, and perhaps 1,500 master's degrees are taught in English in countries where the language has no official status. It provides the vocabulary for some specialised fields, such as air-traffic control. And it is the working language of a growing number of international companies—a big reason why so many of them choose London for their headquarters.

Enthusiasm for English is spreading—even in lingually correct Brussels (see article). In China 180m students are learning English in the formal education system, and more than a fifth of Japanese five-year-olds now attend classes in English conversation. Countries as diverse as Chile and Mongolia have declared their intention to become bilingual in English over the next decade or two. And this year English was added to the curriculum studied by Mexican primary-school children, who are learning the language along with 200,000 teachers. According to David Graddol of the British Council, a cultural organisation, “within a decade nearly a third of the world's population will all be trying to learn English at the same time.”

At first sight this means that things are about to get even cushier for native English speakers; they needn't lift a finger to learn other people's subjunctives. But there are two catches. The first is that they will lose the competitive advantage that once came with being among the relatively few to speak the world's most useful language. Competent bilinguals, many of whom have travelled in the course of acquiring English, can offer everything that English monoglots can—as well as an extra language and an international perspective.

More subtly, as native Anglophones are increasingly outnumbered by people who speak English as a second language, the future of their own language is passing from their hands. Jean-Paul Nerrière, a Frenchman who retired as vice-president of IBM, has written two books about a version of English he calls “Globish”. With a vocabulary of just 1,500 words and no idioms, abbreviations or humour, it focuses on the essentials and leaves out everything that makes cross-cultural communication difficult. He developed this “decaffeinated English” after noticing how much easier the Japanese and South Korean employees at IBM found it to communicate with him and his compatriots than with their British and American colleagues.

Even Britons, however, are willing to learn a language if they can see the benefit of doing so. Nick Byrne, who runs the language centre at the London School of Economics, surveyed university language-centres around Britain. He discovered that tens of thousands of students are studying a language in their own time, or as a small part of their degree. Many are hoping to spend a year studying abroad, and recognise that a language—and a life-changing experience—will get them better jobs.

Anglophones often complain that they would study a foreign language, if only they, like the rest of the world, knew which to choose. But the freedom to choose a second tongue is really more a boon than a curse. Entrepreneurial English-speakers could go for another fast-growing language such as Spanish, Mandarin or Arabic, allowing them to get the leap on their polyglot rivals in these important tongues. Or, in this country of first- and second-generation immigrants, owners of foreign holiday homes and workers dreaming of retiring to the sun, they could pick something more idiosyncratic and follow their hearts.

economist.com
Robin   Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:51 am GMT
Dear Adam

I have not read the full article you have posted.

I saw a smaller version elsewhere.

You must realise that even native speakers think twice before reading a long article on something they are not particularly interested in.

Bye for now

Robin
Guest   Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:08 am GMT
LoL at Robin - you DO have a sense of humour.
Robin   Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:53 pm GMT
I try to use a straight bat


Their florid phraseology and grammatical complexities are often incomprehensible, said Mr Nerrière, who added: “One thing you never do in Globish is tell a joke.
User   Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:20 pm GMT
It just shows that foreigners are too lazy to learn proper English. Why should Anglophones have to suffer for it?
Pos   Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:46 pm GMT
<It just shows that foreigners are too lazy to learn proper English. >

Hmm. Lack of time? Lack of money? Lack of experienced teachers? Did you consider those before making your Anglocentric comments?

And what is "proper English"? Can you define it?
Aisha   Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:11 pm GMT
Hi, I study English and I want to ask about where did the language start .IS it true that it started in India.
User   Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:37 pm GMT
>> Hi, I study English and I want to ask about where did the language start .IS it true that it started in India.<<

No, ENGLISH didn't originate in India. The Indo-Europeans did travel to India though, and thus English is related to the languages spoken in India. Most people think that the Indo-Europeans originated near the Black Sea, and then spread westwards and eastwards.
Guest   Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:05 pm GMT
Oh I always thought it originated from a call centre in India.
User   Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:12 pm GMT
>> Oh I always thought it originated from a call centre in India. <<

Actually, no. Back then, all the call centers were in the US, so people could actually understand the technical help they were receiving. They only moved the call centers to India to discourage people from calling them. Once people realized that they could no longer understand the people in the call centers, they became reluctant to call the company again thus freeing up the phone lines and saving the company thousands of dollars on telephone expenses. Also, the people from the new call centers couldn't be blamed for giving bad advice, because they could always claim that the receiver of the bad advice simply misunderstood. It's the same principle as to why they invented the QWERTY keyboard--to slow people down.
Ell   Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:48 pm GMT
I would define proper english as the english spoken in England/ the UK since it existed before americanised english. I am a native briton who desperatly wants to be able to speak foreign languages and I know exactly which ones but they don't teach them in schools. I think that because many native english speakers cant speak another language many people think we are ignorant and uncultured.
Guest   Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:11 pm GMT
User IS a typical American who behaves like a pompous ass.
Travis   Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:31 pm GMT
>>I would define proper english as the english spoken in England/ the UK since it existed before americanised english.<<

Um, no. both North American English (that's not "americanized English") and English English are equally descended from Early New English, with neither of them being "more original" than the other; NAE is not descended from modern English English, one must remember. Also note that each one is more conservative than the other in some ways and more progressive than the other in other ways rather than one being conservative as a whole and the other being progressive as a whole; NAE is more conservative in being rhotic and largely preserving the subjunctive mood while English English is more conservative in preserving a vowel system closer to that of later Early New English (non-rhoticity aside), for example.

>>I am a native briton who desperatly wants to be able to speak foreign languages and I know exactly which ones but they don't teach them in schools. I think that because many native english speakers cant speak another language many people think we are ignorant and uncultured.<<

In the case of North America at least, the reason why North Americans do not learn languages other than English that much is simply because they do not come into much contact with languages other than English and thus have neither much of a need nor much of a chance to use anything other than English. English-speaking North Americans do not travel all that much outside of English-speaking North America simply because it covers a vast area which contains a wide range of potential places to go combined with making it so that many such individuals live quite far from any place where some language other than English is spoken.