Does English risk being replaced?
I was American born (can't change that unfortunately)...so I make an effort to change who I am. I know 3 languages so far (Eng., Spanish, Sign Language (ASL), and I'm currently studying Mandarin and trying my best to get material on Cebuano even though I may end up speaking Tagalog instead).
If I plan on visiting another country I would do my best to prepare by learning as much of the language as much as possible. Americans (the majority) demand that foreigners learn English...well, it's time Americans taste their own medicine. You go to another country....LEARN the language! If a non-English country comes to be a super power then adapt! LEARN the language.
I actually spoke to a person who had the nerve to ridicule me for making sure my children were at least bi-lingual. She looked down on the fact that I spoke Spanish to them at home. They get sufficient English exposure in school but I don't want them to forget their cultural roots (Mexico).
Thankfully a few people where I live have lightened up a bit in the last 2-3 years and started to make the effort to learn Spanish.
Agree with what TS says. But unfortunately, it seems so few people are as wise as you are. So what to do to make more people realize this?
Just try to enlighten the few you can and try to be happy with it I suppose.
>> You go to another country....LEARN the language! <<
Hmm. Yeah, right. Do you really think that an American is going to spend 5 years learning Bulgarian before he goes on a European tour for a week, and spends a day in an English language tour bus in Bulgaria? Remeber, we're pretty darn far away from other countries...Even Mexico and Quebec are pretty darn far away for most of us. It's not like Europe where an Englishman could take a weekend in Belgium.
I'm not talking about tours. I'm talking about people that go over to spend more that a week, possibly a month or more and they expect to find English speakers at their convenience. At NO point did I mention a tour bus. Visiting a country to me is staying there for maybe a month or two at a time mingling with locals not other Americans. If I meant a weekend or week long tour I would have said it.
I agree with TS. Americans should learn of more countries and their languages. But the sad thing is that most Americans think the USA will always be the "Superpower", as many say. They can't grasp the fact that it will not always be that way. -cough- Sounds like a certain fallen Roman Empire -cough cough-
>> They can't grasp the fact that it will not always be that way. <<
Um...Frankly, it certainly will be for the next hundred years, and after that, maybe the Martians will conquer us. Somehow I don't all that many Americans care what will be the superpower in the distant future, as unless we dramtically increase the average lifespan, it won't really matter to us, eh? The important part is that the US is the current superpower, right now, and though that may change in the far distant future, it certainly isn't going to change anytime soon.
"Um...Frankly, it certainly will be for the next hundred years, and after that, maybe the Martians will conquer us. Somehow I don't all that many Americans care what will be the superpower in the distant future, as unless we dramtically increase the average lifespan, it won't really matter to us, eh?"
Well, if the U.S. government keeps sending soldiers off to die then pretty soon we won't have anybody left to be a "superpower" with. Then maybe it will matter to you after all.
Several points that I think many of the posters overlook:
1. English's future status won't be entirely dependant on the US being a superpower. Even if English-speaking nations aren't as dominant culturally and economically as today, they won't disappear. It's hard to imagine any version of the future where English-speaking North America is not relatively rich and contains fewer than 350 to 400 million people. American dominance helped English attain its present position, but now that it's a global lingua franca...
2. ...the network effect takes over. With a large English language infrastructure in place (online content, printed content, signage, 450 million native speakers, 600 to 800 million ESL speakers), it's unlikely now that any other language could overcome this head start. Other languages have achieved and lost dominance in the past, but that was when most people lived and died within a few square miles. Nothing like our present interconnected world has existed before. It's more like a very, very large multilingual village with no outside influences. Once the lingua franca has been chosen or cobbled together, it's very unlikely to be dislodged.
3. Areas not now speaking English as a mother tongue may adopt it in the future. Most writers that cite the relative decline in the worldwide percentage of mother tongue English speakers overlook this possibility. Large parts of sub-Saharan Africa seem like good candidates, as do Scandinavia and, perhaps in the more distant future, India. I'm pretty sure that 300 years ago it would have been unthinkable to most Irishmen that their descendants would speak anythink but Gaelic.
4. Chinese, at least from the point of view of non-Chinese speakers, has two large disadvantages: tones and a nonalphabetic script. Even English's abominable spelling is easier to learn than Chinese ideograms. And while there may not be anything inherently difficult about tones, they are hard for speakers of nontonal languages (i.e., most of the non-Chinese world) to master.
1. English's future status won't be entirely dependant on the US being a superpower.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
US being THE superpower is, true, not the only factor related to English's future status, but definitely is the first and foremost important factor. Without the US superpower being the backup, English soon sinks down as French or German or Chinese or the like.
<<2. ...the network effect takes over.......Once the lingua franca has been chosen or cobbled together, it's very unlikely to be dislodged.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The network effect is blind to free will, yet solely acknowleges naked power and strength. It is the same with language. Is English as lingua franca chosen. Or has that been chosen? Tell that to a kid! Anyone with a knowledge of the history of English and the Weston imperialism history knows better than that!
<<3. Areas not now speaking English as a mother tongue may adopt it in the future. >>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sayings like this is just naive belief in language acquisition. Unless non-english speaking peoples are generationally forced to learn english alone and equally forced to forget their cultural roots, adoption of English as mother tongue is impossible. Gone are the days of the brutal
ignominious colonialism by Western powers. God forbids it!
<<4. Chinese, at least from the point of view of non-Chinese speakers, has two large disadvantages: tones and a nonalphabetic script>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purely groundless claim. A language serving as a lingua franca has,fundamentally speaking, nothing to do with the inherent qualities of the language itself. Tones and a nonalphabetic script are irrelavant!
"A language serving as a lingua franca has,fundamentally speaking, nothing to do with the inherent qualities of the language itself."
Absolutely correct. It's both a conceit and a deceit for English speakers to assume that their language has intrinsic qualities which make it more "suited" to being the world language.
If by some fluke, Lithuanian suddenly become the language of global economic power and influence, people would be beating down the doors to second-language schools to learn it.
Sheesh. If you'll take another look at what I posted, I wasn't making any claim for inherent superiority of English as a nontonal language. I just said that for speakers who don't grow up using tones phonemically, they're an additional hurdle to learning the language. They don't make it impossible to learn Chinese, they don't make Chinese an inferior vehicle for communication, but they do make it harder for speakers fo nontonal languages (most of the world) to learn.
The other half of my point was that nonalphabetic writing systems are harder to learn than alphabetic systems. I think this is objectively, demonstrably true. I don’t have the figures at hand, but somewhere I’ve seen a comparison of the number of hours Chinese youngsters spend learning to write their language versus Western kids. It takes the Chinese much longer.
Im a Chinese and I believe that Chinese is one of the hardest language, its not about the pronounce but the thousands of years culture...and we have many dialects.Even you can speak mandarin, it not works while you not in big cities in China....You lost~~
Sundanese will replace the language that will replace English as an International language.
Am I grammatically correct ?
Saleh Bin Tariq,
I am a Muslim, and I got an impression that some Muslims ( are they really muslims ? ), have different understanding with mine regarding Islam. I suggest you to seek another website that is specially dedicated for discussing religions/faith.
Can anyone help me to make some corrections to my sentences above ?