Talk:English language/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for English language (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 13 >>

Contents

Dialects

The dialect box is out of control. Part of it has to do with the fact that the word "dialect" invites a free-for-all. Plus, not only is it open to "vanity"-dialect pages but its format takes up too much space. For example, how many times must "English" be repeated?

I would love to work with someone more familiar with the code/tech aspect of the box. I'm already working on a re-classification of the dialects into varieties. Also, the French dialect box works very well and can be used for inspiration.

There will be discussion needed to decide whether some varieties are national or regional varieties, but I'll bring that up on the dialects page.

CJ Withers 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

English as a global language

"There are numerous arguments for and against English as a global language." No arguments are actually given for the pro side, only some general statements about the utility of any global language are made. Are there no features unique to English where it may be better suited than say Esperanto? (Besides pre-existing massive adoption) --belg4mit 71.192.58.23 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is the fact that it's a real as opposed to an artificial language. Jimp 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
But this is really more a disadvantage. Esperanto is real enough that plenty of people speak it quite happily and fluently. The fact that English is the native language of large numbers of people actually makes it a bad candidate for anything but de facto international status. Its use internationally gives an enormous (and I mean enormous) economic and cultural advantage to the English-speaking nations. This is clearly unfair. The advantage of Esperanto is that no one really speaks it natively (though there are a few cases). A disasvantage of it, as stated below, is its European bias. Garik 17.06, 7 May 2006 (BST)
I don't see how anything can be said to have "advantages and disadvantages" for being something that's an inherently bad idea, like a global language. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly unfair to say no arugments for English as a global language have been put forward. I can think of one very good reason in particular, which is that it already has such a strongly established foothold in the global environment. Not to say I support a global language, English or no, but both sides have points. Czoller
I think what they mean is, no arguments for the pro side are put forward in the article, which is quite negative about the issue (hence the NPOV tag). Angr (t • c) 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that the author claims Esperanto belongs to no one single ethnic group, but it is criticized in the Esperanto article for being largely Slavic and Western European in origin and structure. Could someone rewrite this? I sense I would muddle the issue.

I added an NPOV tag to this section. The second and third paragraphs need to rewritten for neutrality and should probably be moved to a comprehensive article on English as global language after corrections are made. The paragraphs were structured to take a pro/con position on making English a global language and this case, the pro/con was an artificial ploy to show neutrality when in fact the author focused on the con position to take an obviously biased position. For example,

"English has been implicated in a number of historical and ongoing so-called 'language deaths' and 'linguicides' around the world, many of which have also led to the loss of cultural heritage. Language death caused by English has been particularly pronounced in areas such as Australia and North America where speakers of indigenous languages have been displaced or absorbed by speakers of English in the process of colonisation.

In addition to having no citation and no specifics to back up the specious claim, the statement is a fallacy of false cause. If you want to say that English speaking governments made or implemented political policies to coerce the speaking of English or eliminate other languages, that's fine assuming it's a historical fact. For example, during the Soviet Union era, the Russian language was imposed through education policy and the use of native languages such as Georgian & Armenian, and other minority languages were severely restricted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.210.84 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anything can be said to have "advantages and disadvantages" for being something that's an inherently bad idea, like a global language. I'm not sure it is such an inherently bad idea - though it certainly has its problems. I certainly think that the expansion of a national language like English to become more global is in many ways an extremely negative thing. However, I also think there's a fair chance that the adoption of a non-nationally-specific language may be one of our only hopes in preventing the rapid death of so many languages throughout the world. But I'm becoming more and more resigned to the fact, except on my most optimistic days, that it ain't gonna happen. garik 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

English speaking in Guam

The article stated that English is an important "minority" language in Guam and Maritius. I can't speak for the latter, but for Guam, English is the most widely spoken. The native language of Guam is Chamorro (Chamorro is also the name given to the natives). More Chamorros speak English than the native language. There are some who speak both fluently, but they're becoming increasingly a minority. Also, amongst the non-Chamorros, English is used almost exclusively in inter-ethnic social settings, in virtually all commerce activity, and exclusively for government business. For example, while Koreans may speak Korean in personal gatherings or business settings when only Koreans are present, while interacting with non-Koreans, English is the language used almost always. Chamorro is listed as one of the official languages of Guam along with English, but this is more of a symbolic gesture than anything else since English is the predominant language in any official setting and in many personal settings.


Urgent! Contradictions

I the first paragraph, it is written quite clearly that "English is currently the most widely spoken and written language worldwide", however, in the Geographic Distribution Paragraph, the article states that "English is the third most widely spoken language in the world today". Please correct accordingly.

English is apparently 3rd on the list after Mandarin and Spanish. However, this is entirely dependent on how that figure is measured, since many people "speak" english (read, or write) and "speak" one of the other top 3 languages, as well. According to the Global Language Monitor [1], English ranks second to Mandarin (Chinese). Mandarin has around 1.5Bil. speakers, english has about 1/2 that or less. I'm going to cut the mention of "the most widely spoken language in the world" in the first paragraph.--Caspiankilkelly 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's a cribhouse?

Pagingmrherman asked "What's a cribhouse?" and red-linked the word in the James Nicoll quote. I removed the link as the word will probably never need an encyclopedia article, but it's still a fair question. Apparently it's an ill-attested word, but a discussion at the LINGUIST list got this answer:

"Cribhouse", says J L Speranza, is based on "crib", an old word for brothel. I don't see this def. in the OED entry for "crib", but the attested senses of 'narrow wooden bed'; 'small habitation, cabin, hovel; narrow room; confined space'; and (thieves' slang) 'a dwelling house, shop, public house' could easily lead to a meaning extension to 'whorehouse'.

Further discussion of the quote, including James Nicoll pointing out it was an off-the-cuff remark, never intended to become widely read, is found here. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

English English

There is very little mention of English English; English that developed in England, hence the name English! For instance, the phonetics table talks about North American English primarily but that is not the actual English Language; some call it American English etc.

  • Don't get too bent out of shape over what is "the actual English Language." It's all English. By your logic, English English isn't "the actual English Language" either because that distinction would be given only to Old English. Language always has and always will change and develop into different dialects. The articles American English and English English exist, so link to them if you feel this article lacks balance. Don't whine. Be proactive. -- Hraefen 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Redundancies in the British Empire?

What's the difference between "and other former British colonies" and "formerly under British rule", which are used in adjacent sentences in the first paragraph? Don't these phrases mean the same thing? Stifynsemons 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

English language teaching statistics and poor source

I replaced the unsourced statistic on English language teaching (32.6% English followed by French, German, Spanish in that order) with statistics from the EU statistics website. These statistics state what exactly the number means (proportion of schoolchildren being taught) and give statistics for the other languages. I think the old statistics were probably accurate though (whatever they actually meant), as they had the languages in the correct order.

I also removed this external link: www.lonympics.co.uk/top10englishspeakingcountriesinpopulation.htm The 10 largest countries in the world that in the main speak English as their main tongue]. Not only is the page badly written and full of annoying ads, the figures are pretty vague and inaccurate. Hairy Dude 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistics!!!!

380 million? really? the US is 280 million, the UK is 60 million, and Im sure Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have more than 40 million people.... not counting english as a first language in Ireland, South Africa, India, Commonwealth countries, etc. Could we have a double-check of the math here? Sharwood april 25, 2006

Your "math" ignores that not all residents of those countries are actually native speakers of English. For example, English is not the most often spoken home language of approximately 20 % of the U.S. population according to the latest Census. In Canada, that percentage probably goes up to 30 % or more (including the French-speaking Canadians who account alone for 23 % of the country's population). I would say the number of native speakers of English is approximately 260 million in North America (240 million in the U.S + 20 million in Canada), 62 million in the British Isles (including Ireland), 24 million in Australia and New Zealand, and another 3 million in South Africa for a total close to 350 million. The number of native speakers in other countries (India, Pakistan, several African nations, etc...) where English is used as lingua franca is actually negligible and should not significantly change the previous estimate. 200.177.0.251 18:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
As of yet, Wikipedia articles refuse to post real statistics on the number of first and second language speakers of English and instead rely on Ethnologue. As a linguist who has worked in Papua, Indonesia I can attest that most of the information provided by Ethnologue is highly inaccurate.
Wikipedia articles don't "refuse to post real statistics". It's just that in most cases Ethnologue is the only citable source that gives statistics. For any language, whether Papuan or English, if you have more reliable statistics than Ethnologue's in a verifiable, reliable source, by all means use that instead! Angr (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would I post statistics on the Papuan languages I have studied and the peoples I have documented? There are no articles here regarding them and no one would bother to read the articles anyway. The fact is that on the languages I studied Ethnologue underestimated the number of native speakers by more than 50%, whereas on some of the largest Papuan languages they overestimated them by up to 50%. If you say that Wikipedia doesn't refuse to post real statistics, why is it that on its list of most native speakers it lists the US with 308 million native speakers and only 200 million second language speakers?
Well, you might write articles on the Papuan languages you have studied and then post statistics on them. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all, and you are probably one of the very few people in the world in the position to say something more about Papuan languages than what can be gleaned from Ethnologue. (Unfortunately if your research hasn't been published yet, it can't be used here because of Wikipedia's policy of No original research.) I think you're mistaken that no one would read them, though; there are lots of "language geeks" here who would enjoy reading about Papuan languages. I know I would. If the statistics on English speakers are wrong, and you have verifiable, reliable sources with which to back up the correct statistics, please do so! No one is refusing to use accurate statistics, but different people find stats from different sources that say different things. If you look through the history of the English language page you'll see how many different people have contributed to the article, and they're all volunteers. If you find an error you know how to fix, it's much more helpful to actually go ahead and fix it than to complain about it on the talk page. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more statistics: British Council FAQs, British Council - The Future of English (pdf) (see pages 8, 10), Ellis - Industry Information (ESL), Worldwide Distribution of English Speakers. Apparently many US residents are not native speakers of English. -- Avenue 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Many Canadian and British nationals are also not "native" english speakers; It's a second language for a large portion of the population, even though they may speak it fluently. The Ethnologue stats are propbably not as skewed as we think in that sense, since Mother Tongue, Home language, and principal spoken language for work may all be different (as is the case with quite a few Quebecers, New Mexicans, Californians, French, Spanish, Indians, Pakistans, Italians, etc...). Mother tongue, or native language is not an indication of speakership.--Caspiankilkelly 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

English as Official Language

I think extra emphasis should be added to the fact that English is NOT the official language of the United States government (although many States have adopted English as their official language). This is a very common misconception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.45.250 (talk • contribs) .

I have to disagree ... at least with respect to this page. The page is about English not US law. If we add emphasis here, we should emphasise the law of every country. Is there room? Jimp 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jimp. We already explain this fact clearly in the Geographic distribution section, and we do not cover similar legal oddities in other countries. Given the length of this article, it might even be worth cutting back on the detail, since it is covered more thoroughly in our article on Languages in the United States. -- Avenue 09:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is stated as the official language in the article, this should be changed.
No, it's called a de facto official language, which means it isn't the official language, but it feels like one. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Map

Shouldnt Namibia be on there? It's the only official language, although only 7% of the population speaks it.


Other missing countries where English has official status, if only spoken by some of the population, include Ghana, Malta, Seychelles, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Samoa and also sub-country areas such as Hong Kong, South Sudan and Puerto Rico where English is an official language?

Could we have a second colour for Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia and maybe Myanmar where English is widley spoken (see British Council - The Future of English (pdf)) but not an official language? (Sorry I dont know how to do this myself)

Nickhk

Paupa New Guinea should also be on there. CharlesMartel 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

The Overseas Territories should not be ignored!

In the map showing the distribution of English speakers, the British Overseas Territories of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as the Pitcairn Islands should also be counted, as the English language prevails over these territories.

14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Repetition Ad Infinitum

About 300 million and 758 times, this article says "English is the most commonly learned second language" or a variation thereof. Haggard. <<<<<DR. SHIO>>>>> 66.82.9.31 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, that's what happens when you have about 300 million and 758 different authors of an article! Still, point taken... Angr (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

South Africa and the Caribbean

In the introductory paragraph South Africa is listed as a country where English is the dominant language, and until my last edit no mention was made of the Anglophone Caribbean. I think this is is a little inaccurate and may, unintentionally, give the impression of being culturally biased.

In South Africa, English is undoubtedly the dominant language of business and the media, particularly since the end of Apartheid and consequent decline in the prestige of and state support for Afrikaans. However, in terms of home language speakers, English lags well behind Afrikaans (15% of South Africans' home language), Zulu (24%), Xhosa (18%) and SeSotho and is only narrowly ahead with Northern Sotho in terms of native speakers. Afrikaans continues to be the most widely spoken second language in South Africa and the lingua franca of most of the Cape while Zulu is increasing in prestige and utility as a lingua franca in Eastern South Africa.

The Caribbean, on the other hand, contains many nations where English is the sole or dominant language, and indeed is a major unifying factor behind the continued cultural, sporting and economic links between former British colonies in the Caribbean. The Anglophone Caribbean has made widespread cultural contributions to the English speaking world more widely - think Bob Marley, Grace Nichols and the West Indies cricket team. I'd suggest a bit of tweaking is needed here but didn't want to jump in with both feet. Gerry Lynch 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Marley I've heard of, the other two I haven't. Your point is well taken, but we mustn't forget that the native language of most people in the Anglophone Caribbean isn't English either, but rather one of many English-lexified creoles. Angr (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Haven't heard of the West Indies cricket team... cough, choke... ;-) Seriously, your point on creoles is well taken although Caribbean Creoles tend in daily usage to sit on a continuum with English and not with their other ancestor languages.
I think the more pertinent point is that English is not the dominant language of South Africa in the way it is of the UK, USA, Australia or even, say, Ireland. It is the home language of only ~10% of the population and while it is the first language of business and the media, it is rivalled by Afrikaans in those spheres, and co-exists with either Afrikaans or Zulu as a lingua franca in most of South Africa. Gerry Lynch 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even know there were crickets in the West Indies, let alone that they had organized a team. Angr (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of countries in first sentence

First, my apologies for not looking back far enough in the edit history. I thought I was simply reverting an unmotivated change. (However, comments by the 82.x.x.x person would have helped....) Secondly, I actually no see reason why having the U.K. first is more sensible; i.e., the very use of the relevance of your claim that it's a "historically more sensible order" needs to be established. Why not: "more sensible order by number of native speakers"? It is biased to assume that that which comes first is primary. Cultural Freedom talk 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The other citeria is the order of the sentence, which mentions the UK, then the US, then other former parts of the British Empire. By putting the US first, someone who didn't know might assume that the British Empire was primarily a US insitution. TharkunColl 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"someone who didn't know might assume that the the British Empire was primarily a US institution" ... I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but that's incredibly funny~kappisto 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The United States should be categorized in the same position as all other former British colonies that have become independent, such as Australia, Canada, etc. Placing the United States above all other nationally acclaimed English-speaking countries is simply biased. I am not from the United Kingdom, so please don't assume this is my personal POV. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is not about British colonialism, it's about the English language, which has more native speakers in the U.S. than anywhere else. Putting the UK first is questionable enough, but your rewrite has no justification. --Cultural Freedom talk 18:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I just made it alphabetical; that seems the best compromise. --Cultural Freedom talk 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that alphabetization is perhaps the best option. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The English language (from the word England, United Kingdom) originated in the UK, meaning that it should definitely be mentioned first. And the only reason the USA has the most native English speakers is because its population is higher than, say, Australia or Canada. Also, most importantly, all countries with English as their national language were formerly under British power, thus have no place over the United Kingdom. The USA, Canada, and Australia alike are all former British colonies. Don't complain too much though, the USA is still placed first in the list of corresponding former colonies. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, which was: Why "originated" ==> "meaning...first"? Repeating the claim isn't answering the Q about the claim's justifiability. But I hope my switch to an alphabetical order pleases everyone! Let's get back to more important issues! Cultural Freedom talk 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, for anyone who sees this, here is a serious question:
  • Is there anything besides a chiefly American encyclopedia and a dictionary that people complain about Wikipedia looking too much like?? Georgia guy 18:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What? I don't understand the question, and am doubtful about its grammaticality. Angr (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the order in which countries are listed, it might be an idea to first eliminate a duplication. "From England it spread to the rest of the British Isles, then to the colonies and territories of the British Empire (both outside and inside the current Commonwealth of Nations) such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland"? The RoI is part of the subset 'the rest of the British Isles', which is a purely geographical term, so this sentence needs to be changed one way or another.--JeHab 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

British Empire

There's a big problem with the first sentence that simple alphabetisation cannot solve. Reading it how it is currently constructed, it makes it seem like the United Kingdom is a former territory of the British Empire. This is arguable at best, because whilst the term "British Empire" is no longer used, it was never an official term anyway, and merely referred to those areas under British control. Given this, we now have the absurd implication that the United Kingdom is a "former" British territory!

The only sensible solution, it seems to me, is to list the UK first, and then list all the former territories of the British Empire, starting with the USA which is obviously the UK's most important former colony. I would then suggest listing the other countries in order of independence (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) and forget alphabetisation altogether. TharkunColl 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem, but I disagree that your suggestions is the only sensible solution. I think sticking with alphabetization, but rewriting to remove the absurd implication (which I agree is there!) will be the most NPOV. I've no time right now, but can get to it tomorrow, if you or no one else can. --Cultural Freedom talk 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
An alphabetic list does not make sense here and looks very odd. In my view the list should definitely start with "England", because that shows where the name comes from. It could continue "and other parts of the UK and former colonies of the British Empire such as ...", where the dots would be in order of number of speakers. &minusWoodstone 20:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I was to agree with alphabetization because I thought my opinion was outnumbered, but apparently everyone else here besides the new user, Cultural Freedom, agrees with my initial suggestion. I will revert to that, then (and incorporating TharkunColl's idea of independence). — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you were a bit hasty. Two Englishmen agree with you, a Canadian. Look at how the article on the Portuguese language is handled. Alphabetization is a standard peace-making gesture. I suggest we try to make it work here. --Cultural Freedom talk 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we continue with the current adaptation until a better–constructed opening can be divised. Perhaps you could do so and place the suggested compromise here. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the following make it more concise (no need to mention the empire or commonwealth):

English is a ... language dominant in England and other parts of the United Kingdom as well as many of its former territories such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and others, particularly those in the Anglophone Caribbean. It is also an important or official language in many countries formerly under British or American rule, such as India, Nigeria and the Philippines.
Please affix (~~~~) to your comments for the sake of dating and signature, it is customary. Also, I disagree with your alterations, I think the original is better in terms of grammar and structure. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A fascinating development elsewhere on Wikipedia has been where a very small group of beligerent editors with a common aim have been accusing another very small group of all sounding the same and so accusing them of being one single person, even though they are patently not. Given that hundreds of thousands of English Public [private] Schools teach fairly exacting and standard English language, phraseology, etc., what sort of a response should be made to such silly accusations? 213.122.83.96 09:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "elsewhere"? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 09:55 (UTC)

Causes of lingua france status

Wiki-Ed: you reverted my changes - I thought my point was non-controversial: Before WWII, French was the (primary) lingua franca of Contintental Europe, esp. Western Europe; Germany for the East. No scholar I'm aware of would attribute the post-WWII change to anything but U.S. dominance (esp. via TV). Same for Japan and China. Why do you disagree? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 17:34 (UTC)

Both the British and American governments have sponsored and subsidised English-for-foreign-language-speaker courses all over the world, in more or less equal measure, since the end of the second world war and right up to the present. The British, in particular, have the BBC World Service (for both radio and TV) which goes to every country, and until very recently was the sole English-language medium allowed in places such as China. The situation is not quite as simple as saying that the U.S. has been the only source of English dominance since the war. TharkunColl 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the U.S. has not been the only source of English dominance since WWII. But the version reverted to by Wiki-Ed was simply not accurate. The pre-WWII dominance of English in many parts of the world is certainly largely due to British influence! But dominance in certain parts of the world is different from lingua franca status per se. English supplanting French as a linqua franca is largely because of U.S. influence. (Indeed, I'd prefer to have "most" instead of "much" in that key sentence, but I'll not change it now.) I know of no scholar who would debate that point. (Some people after the War may prefer the BBC to PBS or CNN, but that's different from the cause of the change in lingua franca status.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 18:16 (UTC)

To compare the BBC to PBS or CNN is a little disingenuous, and really fails to appreciate what the BBC has actually achieved. TharkunColl 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not disingenuous; I think you missed my point. The BBC played essentially no role in getting people who didn't speak English as a native language to use it, instead of French or German, to communicate with others with whom they didn't share a native language. Once English became a lingua franca for them, they may well have preferred the BBC over CNN, or Oxford's dictionaries over Webster's, but that's irrelevant here. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 07:22 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be in line with what the article lingua franca says. violet/riga (t) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to check there! Actually, that article needs a major rewrite, but, to be sure, what is said there should be in sync with what is said here! --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-26 19:19 (UTC)

I believe you'll see I reverted un-explained changes made by Jean Francois on 20 June. I agree that there is probably a difference between "lingua franca" and "dominance", but the paragraph was there to try and emphasise that up until World War 2 it was primarily British (NB not just the British Empire) influence that had "spread the word" and after WW2 it was primarily American influence. I guess it got perverted over the course of time, but as it stands I do not believe it is accurate and will require sourcing if it is to remain. Wiki-Ed 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jean Francois' changes were unmotivated. But no serious historian of the English language would disagree with the claims about the role of the U.S. in the transformation of English into a global linqua franca. It would be silly. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 09:02 (UTC)

Hmmm, "transformation" is probably the wrong word. Before WW2 English had spread widely (primarily) through the influence of the British (science, economics, politics etc). I don't know whether it would qualify as lingua franca before then; but I don't think French would either. After the war - I agree - the US stopped being isolationist and the export of American popular culture using modern technology certainly increased the spread of English to the point where we can now call it a lingua franca without dispute. This was not a "transformation", more a case of building upon what had gone before. "Catalyst" perhaps? I think we need to rewrite the sentence to reflect what was said before with the points made by Cultural Freedom. Any thoughts? Wiki-Ed 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A few quick points:

  • We need to begin by bearing in mind that there is a categorical difference between dominance and lingua franca status. For ex., the fact that most people speak English in the desert continent southeast of Asia is a result of British influence, or dominance. Anyone claiming this is the result of U.S. influence is being goofy.
  • The fact that someone in Auckland speaks English when communicating with someone in Sydney, or in Los Angeles, or Dublin is, likewise, primarily because of British influence (though one could argue that the fact that it's not German or Russian is mostly due to American influence, but that nicety need not be addressed here). But that has nothing to do with the lingua franca status of English. It has as little to do with the lingua franca status of English as does the fact that someone in Sydney uses English to communicate with someone in Melbourne.
  • The probability that, today, a native of Japan will use Japanese to communicate with a native of Seoul has gone down slightly over the last sixty years. The probability that that person will use French has gone down even more. The probability that that person will use Chinese has perhaps increased very, very slightly. But the probability that that person will use English (while still relatively low, in absolute terms) has increased dramatically. It's a stunning change. There's only one significant reason for that change, that transformation (this really is the correct word), in the status of English in that part of the world, and in most of the world: the United States of America. It would be goofy to claim anything else. Such is also the case nearly everywhere else where English has become been transformed into a lingua franca. (Europe is a complicated case -- I'll address that later.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 16:00 (UTC)
How about the Indian subcontinent? English's status as a lingua franca there is directly the result of British influence. And Africa as well, especially places like Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya - and all the other former British protectoractes and dependencies. The example you picked - Japan - is one of the few clear and obvious examples of American influence, since Japan was under American occupation. But taking a more longer-term perspective, since America is an offshoot and former part of the British Empire anyway, the spread, dominance, and lingua franca status of English could easily be said to be as a result of the British Empire. TharkunColl 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to make an edit to take into account the pre-WWII status of English as a regional lingua franca (more accurately, though, in most cases: as an "administrative language"). Though I won't object if you make the change. But, as I've been saying, its having become a global lingua franca is primarily a result of US influence. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 16:56(UTC)

I think you're making something of an artificial distinction between "regional" and "global" - if the regions are big enough they all merge into one. And is the status of English truly global? Are there some areas - Russian Asia for example, or how about South America, where it isn't? I'm not denying U.S. influence since the war, but without the existing regional status of English it would have had nothing to build on, and its task would have been infinitely more difficult. TharkunColl 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1) For the record, it wasn't a "task." More importantly 2) look up "regional" and "global" in a dictionary. They mean different things. The difference isn't artificial. English was transformed into a global -- not the same as universal, nor ubiquitous! -- language primarily because of the U.S. It's really just silly to argue about this. I have seen documents explaining the choice of Sweden to stop teaching German as a primary second language, and start teaching English. (And note, Sweden is in Europe.) The stress is on the U.S. The UK was a pile of rubble in the mid-forties. But yes, of course there was "something to build on." English would not have become a global language if the UK had never existed. So what? Do we need to mention that English wouldn't have becme a global lingua franca if Germanic tribes hadn't migrated to England? Why are we even discussing this? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 16:56(UTC)

We are discussing this because you seem to have an exagerated idea of U.S. influence since the war. No one is trying to deny that this influence has been very pronounced, but British influence also remained strong, especially in the areas I mentioned - India, Africa etc. The distinction between regional and global is purely one of degree, as I said, when regions grow big enough they merge together. As for the UK being a pile of rubble in the mid-40s, well, I think this shows a rather poor understanding of British history, I'm afraid. Certainly the British economy had taken many strains because of the war, but I think it's worth reminding people that it actually survived, and recovery followed. British investment and influence abroad has remained very strong to this day. TharkunColl 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that because of the numbers of people in those parts of the world cited byTharkunColl the British influence is more significant globally. However, the compromise I'm suggesting is to move from "transformed" to something like "strengthened" to recognise the US influence in Europe (which uses Commonwealth English)and Japan. The alternative is to revert it back simply because it's innacurate and has no source. Wiki-Ed 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Strengthened" isn't a compromise. English was spread greatly by the British prior to WWII. It was an administrative and, to a small degree (compared to say French) a lingua franca in a few regions in the world. It became the global lingua franca it is today primarily because of the U.S. This is silly. You're just harrassing me.
By the way, when you refer to the spread of English via British "science, economics, politics etc" and, on the other hand, the spread of English via American "popular culture" there's a missing smiley face, right? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 19:47 (UTC)
But the fact that English already had such a status in so many areas renders your suggestion problematic. Was there a point when English-speakers in India or Africa decided that they would adopt the American dialect? No, of course not. They just continued using English. TharkunColl 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
(Please keep your indents diff. from others' by the way, thanks.) Listen, the Spanish and the French spread their languages across the globe, as did the English. English is the global lingua franca today, not French or Spanish. Why is it English, and not French? The U.S. This is a silly discussion. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-02 09:08 (UTC)
The British Empire was far more widespread than the French ever was, and the Spanish heydey was hundreds of years earlier. U.S. power since world war two has certainly sustained English as a global lingua franca, but it did not create it. This is a very silly discussion. TharkunColl 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out at this juncture that both sides of the argument are relying primarily on original research (or more bluntly, their own beliefs and perceptions). Please find reliable, published sources that discuss the reasons for English's ascendancy to global lingua franca status and report what they say. User:Angr 09:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sourced Wikipedia articles on this subject. Rather than list them all and the sources they use, perhaps you should read some of them before claiming everyone is using original research... and besides which this is a discussion page. Wiki-Ed 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about original research in the article, of course, not the discussion page. If there are well-sourced Wikipedia articles dealing with the rise of English as a global lingua franca, then please cite them in the article. User:Angr 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The disputed section uses established facts cited in other (sourced) articles - history, demographics, geography - many of which are linked from within this article. A new user with a POV agenda disputes this and wishes to radically change the emphasis. The latter is original research. The former is in accordance with official policy on compiling sources.Wiki-Ed 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, a first-time reader of the article (i.e. the intended audience) encounters the sentence "English is the dominant language in many parts of the world largely due to the British Empire and continued influence of the British Commonwealth, its status as the global lingua franca is also enhanced by the economic and cultural influence of the United States as a result of its eminence since World War II" with no sources to back up that claim, which is an undesirable state of affairs. You cannot expect a new reader to go clicking through all of the links in this article hoping to find in some other article the sources that back up this claim. User:Angr 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What sources are required? It seems self-evident that the language spoken by the rulers of the largest empire that the world had ever seen, and used by local native administrators in places such as India and Africa where a multitude of native tongues were spoken, would have had a significant effect on the spread of the language and its adoption as a lingua franca. To quote from Crystal's book "The British Empire cover[ed] nearly a third of the earth's surface, and British subjects [were] self-evident that the civilizing influence of Britain was a desirable goal, anywhere in the world, and that the English language was an essential means of achieving this end." [2]. What about The notion of an international language and the case of English "By a quirk of history the people of today’s superpower speak the same language as those of the country that dominated much of the world in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At the height of its power the British Empire embraced one fifth of the earth’s land area. Many of the countries formerly ruled by the British have continued to give special status to the English language. Those at the core of the English-speaking world (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US itself) all derived their language from British settlers and with it supplanted the indigenous languages formerly spoken on their territories. In other countries of Africa and Asia, where there is sometimes a large number of local languages, English has been found useful as a national lingua franca and enjoys either official or quasi-official status. Taken together, the countries in which English has maintained a special place in the wake of past British imperialism account for more than of a third of the world’s population." - Jooler 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly sources examining the causes of the English language's rise to global lingua franca status. The cause may seem self-evident to you, but it clearly isn't self-evident to everyone or this discussion wouldn't be happening. The article you linked to above is a good start, although I'd prefer something more scholarly and (frankly) better written. Where does the second quote come from? User:Angr 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The first quote is from Crystal's book (I think), the second (follow the link) is from the article wirtten by someone at http://www.aiic.net/ the International Association of Conference Interpreters - Jooler 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well David Crystal is certainly scholarly enough, though I'm confused that the link given doesn't actually link to anything by him. garik 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
what link are you following? the link above contains the text "By the beginning of the 19th century, Britain had become the world's leading industrial and trading nation. In Crystal's book, pre-20th century commentator Isaac Pitman notes, "The British Empire covers nearly a third of the earth's surface, and British subjects are self-evident that the civilizing influence of Britain was a desirable goal, anywhere in the world, and that the English language was an essential means of achieving this end." Jooler 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm confused by in that quote is (1) How is one author saying something in another author's book? (Is Crystal quoting him? Did Pitman write a prologue to Crystals's book? Something else? (2) How can a pre-20th century commentator have written anything in a 1997 book? (3) What is "British subject are self-evident that the civilizing influence of Britain was a desirable goal" supposed to mean? Does "self-evident" mean "confident" in British English? In American English, a fact can be self-evident, but a person can't. User:Angr 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1) In my absence, someone changed my formulation to one that isn't expositionally coherent. Many here clearly don't grasp the difference between dominance and global lingua franca status. (Reflect on the "also" in the current version of the sentence I'm now going to change.) (Also, no reasonable person can claim English was the global lingua franca before WWII.) 2) Angr is absolutely right that citation are needed. I'm very busy, but will get some within a few days. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-10 07:53 (UTC) P.S. That 80.... IP number is I. Weird. I was actually logged in.

I think we all know: 1. Where the language originated; 2. How it spread across the globe; and 3. How it penetrated other cultures to achieve a lingua franca status. The sourcing argument is fallacious. User:Angr’s reasoning dictates that first-time readers instead have to go to their local library, which is far less satisfactory than internal hyperlinks. But nevermind. “The English Language: A Guided Tour of the Language” (or perhaps some of Crystal's other works) covers the points we wish to raise and I suggest we use it as the reference. I don’t understand the comment about him not being scholarly enough and I reject that assertion. If other people wish to corroborate this with other sources then they are welcome to do so. On to the wording: At the moment it is unsatisfactory so I have scrapped the latter half of the paragraph and written a new one to start after “…of the Germanic languages”. The subsequent G8 bit is irrelevant to this section and to the introduction. It also breaks the flow into the next paragraph so I have removed it. Wiki-Ed 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed: your recent changes are a big improvement. I might want to make minor tweaks later (still seems you're trying to hide what "we all know" under #3 -- though there may be different I's here... :) ), perhaps even not so minor changes (though I'm not sure). But it's a big improvement. About Crystal: I disagree that his work should be the primary source here (I'll try to explain why later). But the article is now non-rubbishesque enough that I can live with it as it is, for a while. Thanks for your efforts. Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-10 15:37 (UTC)
Thanks, although I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I don't know who's who in linguistics; it's not my field (I am more concerned with the historical sections). I've just picked a source from the bookshop across the road from my office. What he writes corresponds to the historical record: the foundation was laid in England; the British Empire built up the walls; the US finished it off, tiled the roof, glazed the windows and laid the carpets. Wiki-Ed 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Simple question, perhaps not a simple answer. If the British Empire had faded after the loss of the American colonies, assuming an otherwise parallel world history, would English now be the Lingua Franca that is it today. Who knows? Spanish would have dominated South America, probably French in Europe and South-East Asia (perhaps India too). Dutch in Australia and other parts of SE-Asia (Indonesia etc). English would have been a minor language spoken by one large power, similar to Russian spoken in the USSR. Historically French was the language of the Russian Court of course and among the intelligentsia the language of culture. If Britain hadn't been there before it, spreading the language to the four corners of the globe then English would probably not have become quite so dominant, I tink French would have been in the position that English is in today. Jooler 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
We can speculate till the cows come home and it doesn't bring us any closer to answering the question of why English has become the global lingua franca. Of course the influence of both the British Empire and the United States has a lot to do with it, but still I don't believe that's the whole story. As Cultural Freedom remarked above, the chances of a native of Tokyo and a native of Seoul communicating with each other in English are drastically higher than they were 60 years ago, and neither Japan nor Korea was part of the British Empire, nor was either ever subject to particularly strong American cultural influence. And I know also from experience that the chances are good that a French-speaking Belgian and a Dutch-speaking Belgian will speak to each other in English, likewise a French-speaking Swiss and a German-speaking Swiss, despite the fact that in both Belgium and Switzerland schoolchildren are (AFAIK) required to learn the "other group's" language. And that's just not due to either the British or the American Empire, at least not directly. User:Angr 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We can speculate about what might have been; but what has happened is fairly well documented. Japan and Korea were both heavily influenced by the US. After WW2 Japan was controlled by the US for a time. If I recall correctly English was forcibly introduced by the American military and the end result is English signposting (which is great) and "All your base are belong to us" (which is not so great). I assume the same applies in Korea following the Korean War. So the answer there is the direct and forcible imposition of a language by a major power, something which Crystal is quite emphatic about. I think you're right about the Belgian and Swiss school children being a different matter entirely, but the root cause has to be either British or American influence in some form. Probably both. Wiki-Ed 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should actually be a no-brainer. The worldwide expansion of English between the 17th and 20th centuries was due primarily to British colonialism, which took the English language to North America, the Caribbean, Africa, Australia/New Zealand, and the Indian subcontinent. On the other hand, the emergence of the U.S. as the world's major superpower in the past 60 years explains why English has eventually become the dominant language of international business and science (before that, it was already a major world language, but had to compete with French and German, especially in diplomatic and scientific forums). In particular, the growing use of English as lingua franca in post-WWII continental Europe and Eastern Asia is directly tied to American influence in those regions. From an European perspective though, economic and political factors aside, one of the reasons IMHO why English is so popular as a second language is that it is a relatively easy language to learn, being accessible to both Romance (e.g. French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese) and Germanic (e.g. Dutch, German, Scandinavian) speakers. 200.177.0.251 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I'm being so fussy about cited sources for this is that different people have different ideas about what precisely in this whole story is blindingly obvious. (Most people have agreed with you that this "should actually be a no-brainer" but then differ on the details.) I want to make it clear that by requesting sources I am not saying I doubt the truthfulness of the claims. Contrary to what some people think, the template {{fact}} isn't a euphemism for "bullshit". User:Angr 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

bahrain?!

IS english really a de facto spoken language in bahrain???? Pure inuyasha 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It surprised me too, but check out the CIA Factbook entry: [3] --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 07:12 (UTC)

Restoring text

I restored my text after User:Patbaseball2221 reverted it and proceeded to tell me to suck his balls. --VKokielov 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is hopeless. --VKokielov 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of First-Language Speakers of English

This topic may have been discussed here before, but I believe the number of first-language speakers of English as listed in the Wikipedia article is probably overestimated. It should be something like 350 rather than 400 million. Please double-check. 200.177.0.251 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So long as population estimates are so imprecise we can never be sure of this. Wiki-Ed 09:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The article linked to in our second paragraph gives Ethnologue as a source, with a figure of 322 million native speakers, so our text (which says over 400 million) doesn't match this. I'll fix this inconsistency now.
But giving a range would probably be better than relying on any single estimate. Can anyone find sources for any other figures? -- Avenue 11:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
One of my textbooks reports several figures: from 1985, "between 320 and 380 million"; from 1997, "around 377 million". The 1997 figure is from David Crystal, English as a Global Language, Cambridge University Press. Ethnologue gives a figure of 309 million here. HenryFlower 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll change it to say 300-400 million native speakers. -- Avenue 12:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a 2002 figure of 402 million native speakers. -- Avenue 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Overall comment

I think this article seriously understates the global penetration of English and the very rapid increase in the number of people with some proficiency in English, especially in China, India and SE Asia. I have read a recent prediction (I can't find it now) that within 10-20 years 50% of the world's adult population will have a basic proficiency in English, which will of course mean that for the first time in history the majority of the human race will have a common language. English is already far and away the world's most widely understood language, and the most widely understood language in history. Ethnologue's figure of 500 million first and second-language English speakers is a bare minimum, and probably an underestimate, but much more important is the number with basic proficiency, which must already be around 2 billion if the above prediction is correct. This includes, for example, most of the urban adult population of western Europe, none of whom would class themselves as "English speakers", but the great majority of whom have learned English at school and have at least some proficiency. The opening section of this article is a serious understatement of the increasing world dominance of English, doubtless a result of Wikipedia editors' well-known political and cultural bias against the dominant culture. Adam 11:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the statistics here probably understate the penetration and spread of English, I think the reason is more likely to Wikipedia's concern with verifiability combined with the patchy statistics available on non-native English speakers/users. If you agree, please help, e.g. by filling in some of the numerous gaps in our List of countries by English speaking population. -- Avenue 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a Times article claiming there are 1.9 billion competent speakers of English. -- Avenue 04:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. Now the opening can be rewritten with a referenced source. Adam 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)