It is everywhere. Some 38-million people speak it as their first language and perhaps two-thirds as their second. A billion are learning it, about a third of the world's population are in some sense exposed to it and by 2050, it is predicted, more than half the world will be more or less proefficient in it. it is the language of globalisation - of international business, politics and diplomacy. it is the language of computers and the Internet. Bjork, and Icelander sings in it. Truly, the tongue spoken back in the 1300s inly by the 'low people' of England, has come a long wa. it is now the global language.
Why? NOt because English is easy. true, genders are simple, since English relies on 'it' as the pronoun for all inanimate nouns. But the verbs tend to be irregular, the grammar bizzare and the match between spelling and pronunciation a nightmare. English is now so widely spoken that numerous versions have evolved, some so peruliar that even native speakers may have trouble understanding each other. But if inly one version existed, that would provide difficulties enough. Even everyday English is a language of subtlety, nuance and complexity. i'd like to cite the word 'set', word that takes on different meanings in a sporting; cooking, social or mathematical context. Then as a verb, it becomes 'set aside'. 'set up', 'set down', 'set on', 'set about', and so on, terms that can leave speakers bewildered about its core meaning.
As a language with origins in Latin, Germanuc, Norse, Celtic and so on. English was bound to be a mess. But its elasticity makes it messier, as well as stronger. When it comes to new words, English puts up few barriers to entry. The past decade, for instance, has produced not just a ost of Internettery and computerese such as 'browsers' but quantities of teen slang such as 'fave'. All new words are readily recieved by English, however much some may resist them. In the 18th Century some writers such as Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift wanted to see a committee set up to regulate the language.
Fortunatley, the principles of free trafe triumphed, as Samuel Johnson, the compiler of the great English dictionary, rather relcutantly came to admit. "May the lexicographer be derided," he declared, "who shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language ... to enchain syllabes, and to lash the wind, are equally indertakings of pride." PRide however, is seldom absent when language is under discussion, and no wonder, for the success or failure of a language has little to do with its inherent qualities "and everything to do with the power of the people who speak it." and that, as Professor JEan Aitchison of Oxford University points out, is particularly true of English.
It was not always so. In the Eastern half of the ROman Empire for example, Greek remained the language of commerce long after Greek political supremacy had come to an end. But Greek and Latin, despite some modern twists, were fixed languages with rigid rules and failed to adapt naturally. English moved with the times, and by the 19th centurythe times were such that it had spread across an empire on which the sun never set. It thus began its rise as a global language. Thus could be seen not just by the use fo English in Britain's colonies, but also by its usefulness much further afield. When for instance Germany and Japan were negotiating their alliance against America and BRitain in 2940, their two foreign ministers held discussions in English. But however accomodating Eglish might be, and however much of the world map was once painted British red, the real reason for the latter-day triumph of English is the triumph of the English speaking United States as a worldpower. Therein lies a huge source fo friction.
The merit of English as a global language is that it enables people of different countries to converse and do business with each other. But languages are not only a medium of communication, which enable nation to speak unto nation. They are also repositories of culture and identity. Inmany countries, the all-engulfing advance of English threatens to erode or eradicate much local culture. THis is sometimes lamented even in England itself, for though the language that now sweeps the world is called English, the culture carried with it is American.
On the whole, the British do not complain, Some may regret the replacement of the 'bullet-proof waistcoat' in favour of the bullet-proof vest', for example, but few mind or even notice that their old 'railway station' has become a 'train station' and people now live 'on' and not 'in' a street. Others, however are not so relaxed. Perhaps it's hardest for the French. Ever since the revolution in 1789, they have aspired to see their language achive a sort of universal status. As the 20th centuray drew on, however, and English continued to encroach, Frech was driven on to defensive. For example, before BRItain jpined what beame the Eurpoean Union in 1973, the French was the club's sole official language. Now that its members also include Finalnd and Sweden, whose people often speak better English than the BRitish, English is the EU's dominant tongue. Indeed, over 85% of all international organisations use English as one of their official languages.
For some countries, the problem with English is not that it is spoken, but that it is not spoken well enough. the widespread use of 'Singlish' is a perpecyual worry to the authorities in Singapore, who fear lest their people lose thier command of the 'proper' lond and with it a big commercial advantage over their rivals. IN India by contrast, some people see English as an oppressive lagacy of colonialism that should be exterminated. Others however, velieve that it binds a nation of 700 tongues and dialects together and connects it to the outised boot.
Yet the extinctino of most languages is probably unstoppable. Television and radio, both blamed for homogenisation, may paradoxically prolong the life of some by 'narrow casting' in monrotiy tongues. and though many languages may die, more people may also be able to speak several languages: multilingualism, hence the British being the most monolinguitic of all the people in the EU. Thus the triumph of English not only destroys the tongues of others; it isolates natice English speakers from the literature, history and ideas of other people. it is in short, a thotoughly dubious triumph.
Why? NOt because English is easy. true, genders are simple, since English relies on 'it' as the pronoun for all inanimate nouns. But the verbs tend to be irregular, the grammar bizzare and the match between spelling and pronunciation a nightmare. English is now so widely spoken that numerous versions have evolved, some so peruliar that even native speakers may have trouble understanding each other. But if inly one version existed, that would provide difficulties enough. Even everyday English is a language of subtlety, nuance and complexity. i'd like to cite the word 'set', word that takes on different meanings in a sporting; cooking, social or mathematical context. Then as a verb, it becomes 'set aside'. 'set up', 'set down', 'set on', 'set about', and so on, terms that can leave speakers bewildered about its core meaning.
As a language with origins in Latin, Germanuc, Norse, Celtic and so on. English was bound to be a mess. But its elasticity makes it messier, as well as stronger. When it comes to new words, English puts up few barriers to entry. The past decade, for instance, has produced not just a ost of Internettery and computerese such as 'browsers' but quantities of teen slang such as 'fave'. All new words are readily recieved by English, however much some may resist them. In the 18th Century some writers such as Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift wanted to see a committee set up to regulate the language.
Fortunatley, the principles of free trafe triumphed, as Samuel Johnson, the compiler of the great English dictionary, rather relcutantly came to admit. "May the lexicographer be derided," he declared, "who shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language ... to enchain syllabes, and to lash the wind, are equally indertakings of pride." PRide however, is seldom absent when language is under discussion, and no wonder, for the success or failure of a language has little to do with its inherent qualities "and everything to do with the power of the people who speak it." and that, as Professor JEan Aitchison of Oxford University points out, is particularly true of English.
It was not always so. In the Eastern half of the ROman Empire for example, Greek remained the language of commerce long after Greek political supremacy had come to an end. But Greek and Latin, despite some modern twists, were fixed languages with rigid rules and failed to adapt naturally. English moved with the times, and by the 19th centurythe times were such that it had spread across an empire on which the sun never set. It thus began its rise as a global language. Thus could be seen not just by the use fo English in Britain's colonies, but also by its usefulness much further afield. When for instance Germany and Japan were negotiating their alliance against America and BRitain in 2940, their two foreign ministers held discussions in English. But however accomodating Eglish might be, and however much of the world map was once painted British red, the real reason for the latter-day triumph of English is the triumph of the English speaking United States as a worldpower. Therein lies a huge source fo friction.
The merit of English as a global language is that it enables people of different countries to converse and do business with each other. But languages are not only a medium of communication, which enable nation to speak unto nation. They are also repositories of culture and identity. Inmany countries, the all-engulfing advance of English threatens to erode or eradicate much local culture. THis is sometimes lamented even in England itself, for though the language that now sweeps the world is called English, the culture carried with it is American.
On the whole, the British do not complain, Some may regret the replacement of the 'bullet-proof waistcoat' in favour of the bullet-proof vest', for example, but few mind or even notice that their old 'railway station' has become a 'train station' and people now live 'on' and not 'in' a street. Others, however are not so relaxed. Perhaps it's hardest for the French. Ever since the revolution in 1789, they have aspired to see their language achive a sort of universal status. As the 20th centuray drew on, however, and English continued to encroach, Frech was driven on to defensive. For example, before BRItain jpined what beame the Eurpoean Union in 1973, the French was the club's sole official language. Now that its members also include Finalnd and Sweden, whose people often speak better English than the BRitish, English is the EU's dominant tongue. Indeed, over 85% of all international organisations use English as one of their official languages.
For some countries, the problem with English is not that it is spoken, but that it is not spoken well enough. the widespread use of 'Singlish' is a perpecyual worry to the authorities in Singapore, who fear lest their people lose thier command of the 'proper' lond and with it a big commercial advantage over their rivals. IN India by contrast, some people see English as an oppressive lagacy of colonialism that should be exterminated. Others however, velieve that it binds a nation of 700 tongues and dialects together and connects it to the outised boot.
Yet the extinctino of most languages is probably unstoppable. Television and radio, both blamed for homogenisation, may paradoxically prolong the life of some by 'narrow casting' in monrotiy tongues. and though many languages may die, more people may also be able to speak several languages: multilingualism, hence the British being the most monolinguitic of all the people in the EU. Thus the triumph of English not only destroys the tongues of others; it isolates natice English speakers from the literature, history and ideas of other people. it is in short, a thotoughly dubious triumph.