Comment about Tom’s new article.

<<Nobody is forcing English in Tom's world. It's a natural evolution and improvement. In his world. Not a revolution. In this world. I understand him (I think), he wants equal rights and opportunities for everyone. He's a fucking founding forefather of America. In his world. >>


Well, he claims that peoples' native languages should not be taught any more, so that kind of is 'forcing' isn't it. Like Franco did to Catalan, or like the Soviets did to the Baltic languages.


<<he wants equal rights and opportunities for everyone. >>

I don't get how speaking the same language will give equal opportunities to everyone. So that everyone can study science instead of languages? That's ridiculous. It's hard enough to get people studying science as it is today. And there will always be the large proportion of people who are not scientifically inclined, and what are they supposed to do? What else can these people study?


<<<< I do have a faint hope it would help promote world peace. >> >>

Not a chance. It's a new form of colonialism, and people will fight against it. I can imagine a new breed of terrorists coming to rise against the colonial cultural master.

Some of the comments seem to verge on hysteria.

I am going to visit some people in Poland soon. The man actually hates living in Poland and would like to live somewhere else. Unfortunately he only speaks Polish, and realistically is unlikely to learn English. However he does like to travel all over the world at every opportunity (drop of a hat).

Polish people of a certain generation lived behind the 'Iron Curtain' and were unable to travel. Consequently there is a whole generation of people who hate Communism, and who even think that the Nazis were better. Surprising but true!

For such people 'English' represents culture and freedom, and 'Russian' represents 'oppression'. Rather like black school children in Soweto (a black township of Johannesburg) who rioted and closed the schools, because they were taught in Afrikaans (the language of the oppressor).

In Scotland and Wales, there are also some people who also regard English as being the language of the oppressor. In the rather depressed area where I live, there are people who stuggle with basic literacy who feel that their particular dialect is superior.

I really disliked learning French, and I too shared Tom's view that there should only be one language in the world. However I have since moderated my views. I accept that there are people who genuinely find it difficult to learn another language. Tom has made a career out of 'learning another language'.

Personally I am amazed that I can send these 'Posts' bearing in mind my knowledge of French!

<<who hate Communism, and who even think that the Nazis were better. Surprising but true! >>

What is surprising? To hate Communism? If you lived in a communist one you would not find it to be surprising. In fact those who support Communism nowadays are mainly dumb teenagers in Western Europe. Also it's true that Communism is worse than Nazism as the Communist killed more people than the Nazis by a large margin.

Well, I think Tom may be overstating the attachment we English-speakers have to our language! There are those who are deeply attached to it and those who aren't.

As for there being no practical reason to preserve language diversity; well, I think there are a few.

1) First of all, diversity is generally a good thing to have. As any biologist. The more options and variations there are, the better. You never know what you might need to call upon in the future.

2) Languages are a big part of being human, and the diversity of languages gives us insight into the many ways of being human. It seems to be a fact that the use of language greatly influences how we are able to grasp, define, and deconstruct reality. The constraints and structure of a given language can impose subconscious constraints and structure on how a person conceives of the world. Different languages result in different modes of thinking sometimes. It is said that the structure and assumptions behind some of the Native American languages greatly influence those tribes' concepts of time, for instance, and make them very different from a Western concept of time. And this conceptual shift is not just a function of their culture; it has also become intrinsic in their tongue and therefore also in their way of thinking. So the three elements -- culture, language, and paradigm -- are all interwoven.

Yes, there may have been some randomness to the development of so many language groups in the beginning, but I think people have also developed the languages that they needed to have, with the elements that were important to their situation, and that uniqueness is important. There are some concepts that are expressed very evocatively and succinctly in one language, but not in others. Is it worth losing all that range of human experience by choosing just one mode of describing it? I think the splintering of English into various dialects around the globe illustrates that just one mode can't possibly fulfill all needs. Americans and Australians needed new words for things that hadn't existed in Great Britain. And certain elements of our culture seem to be expressed in the variations in how we use our language -- the relative informality and tendency to simplify spelling and grammar seems to fit the pragmatism of American culture; the tendency to shorten and slangify words seems to fit the laidback Australian style, etc. And these are all dialects coming out of closely related peoples and cultures! Imagine how English might or might not serve the needs of people coming from a very different culture and place.

"Ask any biologist" -- my proofreading skills are sucking tonight!

"As for there being no practical reason to preserve language diversity..."

I think there is one very practical reason for preserving language diversity. That is the fact that there are a lot of languages already, and they are not likely to die out before English. Trying to make English the only language of world is just a waste of resources. Instead, the use of other languages should be supported.

Languages are alive. They grow, change, have intercourse, even die. What will happen to languages is not ours to decide. Nothing should be supported, nothing should be prohibited. Leave languages to live a life of their own.

"It's only because you've enjoyed learning it, and you know it well."

No, it's because of all the reasons that I gave and you never bothered to read.

"I hope you learn to appreciate diversity and culture one day"

I appreciate them, but the costs outweigh the benefits.

"Or perhaps with your American English loving views, we should all turn to a nice, stable currency like the USD... (sarcastic tone)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"better communication = true, but to what extent? Are communications really hindered that much today?"

Can I ask directions in English in Italy? Can the average Pole read German newspapers to learn the German point of view on European issues? Can I start a forum where people from France, Spain and Germany can freely discuss current topics and learn about each other? Is it easy for Westerners to understand and identify with the Chinese?


"Imagine the costs of switching to English. An army of English teachers, an army of translators to translate everything into English."

We've already discussed this. Why do I have to repeat myself? The army of English teachers and translators would be a temporary measure. When the world became unilingual, there would be no more need for them. In your "diverse" system, teachers and translators will be needed forever.

"Non-English speakers learn English easily in addition to learning other things."

This has not been my experience. The English you hear at scientific conferences is often horrible.

<<Can I ask directions in English in Italy?>>

Not important in the slightest. Surely you're not going to impose your language on a whole nation simply because you're too lazy to open the back page of your guide book???


<<Can the average Pole read German newspapers to learn the German point of view on European issues? Can I start a forum where people from France, Spain and Germany can freely discuss current topics and learn about each other?>>

There are other ways of doing this besides annihilating all other languages but English. For example the European Commission promotes the learning of European Community languages for greater cultural understanding, and it's goal is for everyone to know 3 languages. What's wrong with this method?

And you don't need excellent English to take part in a discussion forum in English, and you certainly don't need to give up your native language to do it. This forum is a good example of excellent communication between people of different native tongues, and yet I can guarantee not one of us has had to give up our native language in order to be here.

Besides, if we all speak English our cultures will all become the same so what left is there to learn about each other?


<<Is it easy for Westerners to understand and identify with the Chinese? >>

We already identify with them to the necessary degree, some would argue. To what extent do we actually need to identify with them? Are we going to keep going till we're one and the same?

"Surely you're not going to impose your language on a whole nation simply because you're too lazy to open the back page of your guide book???"

Surely not only for that reason, but also for ALL the other reasons which you have conveniently chosen to ignore for the purposes of the above "rebuttal". Lame straw man tactic.


<<Can the average Pole read German newspapers to learn the German point of view on European issues? Can I start a forum where people from France, Spain and Germany can freely discuss current topics and learn about each other?>>
"There are other ways of doing this besides annihilating all other languages but English."

Yes, and they are all much more expensive and time-consuming in the long run. This is the center of my argument. I never claimed that eliminating all languages other than English is the ONLY way to ensure communication. I just claimed it is the best way.


"Besides, if we all speak English our cultures will all become the same so what left is there to learn about each other?"

- so one Pole has nothing to learn about another Pole?
- so an American has nothing to learn about an Englishman?


"To what extent do we actually need to identify with [the Chinese]?"

I think it is a good thing if human beings can identify with each other.

"Are we going to keep going till we're one and the same?"

What if? The funny thing is, there are 300 million Americans. And nobody is saying "Oh my God, we Americans are one and the same. Let's introduce new languages, we need more divisions in society!" I bet the same would be true if all humans spoke the same language.

Uriel:

You make very interesting points.
Actually, you make two contrasting points in different parts of your post. :)

1. "The use of language greatly influences how we are able to grasp, define, and deconstruct reality." In short, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: Language determines thought.

2. "Languages arise out of different ways of thinking in different cultures". In short: Thought determines language.

Currently, we do not know if (1) or (2) is true. For example, we know the Piraha tribe in Brazil has no words for numbers AND they have difficulty memorizing the number of objects, BUT we don't know which is the effect and which is the cause.

If (1) is true, it could be argued that language uniformization would reduce the diversity in thought. Would the reduction matter? Not necessarily. The sciences already have a pretty uniform language all over the world. There is no "Chinese" mathematics with different concepts from "German" mathematics. All mathematicians pretty much use the same language toolkit. The same goes for other sciences.

If (2) is true, it could be argued that it would be very hard to e.g. teach all Japanese English, since their way of thinking is so different. It could be argued that if we were to "force" English upon the world, many people would be unhappy or impaired in some way. It's an interesting thing to think about.

<<I think it is a good thing if human beings can identify with each other. >>

Do you really think destroying their 5000 year old culture will help us "identify" with eachother? I rather think it would bring about WWIII.

When there is a one-world culture, there will probably be one language
worldwide.

The sameness of it all seems boring to me, but perhaps the reality would be different.