Tower Of Babble: Non-Native Speakers Navigate The World Of 'Good' And 'Bad' English

[Cainntear]

Would you surprised if I was to say "no, I think it's not rubbish."...? Because, bizarre as it may seem to you that other people have different views on the world from you, we in fact do, and we actually believe the things we say -- we are not some faceless conspiracy of liars who know that LeBaron is correct and say otherwise for nefarious reasons.

I wouldn't say any of that. Just that your analysis is naive and incorrect. Views and opinions are lovely, but the harder facts of how English came to prominence and is maintained are more solid and more interesting.

Am I to read that as what I say is views and opinions, but what you say is fact...? Cos it still sounds like you're saying that your belief that you're right justifies telling me that I'm categorically wrong

Except that French was the established international language. How did English displace French?

What?

Ah, the "I can't believe you would believe something so stupid what" -- that's really pretty rude.

It was one colonial language among a handful. It and Spanish lost out to English.

I'm not talking about colonial languages -- I'm talking about international lingua francas. As colonial languages, French, Spanish and English were not in competition. The colonial powers were in competition, but within each individual colonial empire, one language reigned unchallenged.

The old 'French was the language of diplomacy' is a nice cultural touch for people to utter at dinner parties, but we know the truth about how colonial imperialism actually played out.

See, now you're the one that's ignoring history. You've picked one strand and are treating that as the full story. French's status as the "language of diplomacy" isn't (as you seem to be implying) a euphemism to wipe away the atrocities of the empire, but a reference to the fact that it was used by diplomats from independent, non-Empire, non-Francophone countries for international communication.

To this day, international agreements are still very often referred to as "accords" because for centuries they were written in French.

"No impetus" is different from "no intent". The internet is dominated by English in no small part because of the ignorance of the monoglot American techies that created the protocols it runs on. They wrote it for their own usecase -- 26 Latin letters, no diacritics etc -- and that made using it for other languages tricky. They didn't spec in protocols for automatically handling translated versions, and even now, multilingual websites use hacks and inconsistent techniques, and many people end up unaware that a version of any given site exists in their language.

Yes indeed. Which is yet another case of English being given a priority leg-up.

As I keep saying, I'm talking about the lack of intent and the lack of marketing. I am not saying for a second that it is fair, just and equitable, I am saying simply that it is an emergent phenomenon, where a bunch of interacting forces create structure from random input.

After all the early Internet kicked off just as enthusiastically in France, so what happened? (That's a rhetorical question, not a request). If your original 'view' was correct all the end users would be driving the language uptake, but on the whole they're not.

Why is your view better than my "scare-quotes-view"? You believe that the lack of correction proves your point, I believe it doesn't. And I'm not the only one.
The internet reached critical mass in English. The first adopters in France were interacting with an English-language internet. They integrated themselves into an English-language internet. They produced material online in English. Then as their colleagues and contemporaries joined them, they were interacting with... an English-language internet. Because the critical mass was in English, they continued to make stuff in English.
Cos, you know, it was either write in English only or write everything twice.

This, of course, wasn't just a problem for French speakers, but speakers of every language other than English.

The only thing unique about the situation for French was the existence of Minitel. France could have been a global early adopter of the internet, as it had the quality of communications infrastructure and high level of home computer ownership necessary, but in Minitel they already had a remote data system that was run by the national phone company. As I understand it, France Télécom deliberately held back supporting modems and the internet, and France on the whole was late to adopt the internet. Many companies didn't bother building websites at first and continued to focus on Minitel, and that led to people seeing little point in using the internet, and the whole thing became a self-sustaining system -- lack of users discouraged developing websites; lack of websites discouraged new user; ad infinitum.
And meanwhile, as I said, there was still some growth of internet use in France, but it was in English.

There is a view in the tech field that had France Télécom pushed the internet to their users as a replacement for Minitel, France would have been a major player in the internet, and French would have become the undisputed "second language of the internet".

In fact, there is also the hypothesis that if French had gained any such foothold, the knock-on effect would have been that the internet would have been more readily recognised as multilingual and other languages would have benefited.

It was not the "marketing" of English (to use the word Cavesa started this part of the debate with) that did that -- it was a commercial decision by a telecomms monopoly that had no English agenda to push.

And that is just one of the many factors of this complex, emergent system.

[Le Baron]

What a rambling, goalpost-shifting word-salad. Claim your 'victory' and rejoice. I can't be bothered.

[lysi]

Except that French was the established international language. How did English displace French?

I've never felt the discussion on the position of French as an international language or language of royalty or whatever to be particularly productive. French was just the language of very specific domains, while the pervasiveness of English is all-encompassing. This is of course due to globalization, but had French remained in its specific domains for a longer period of time (that of diplomacy) English would still be in the same position as today.

[Cainntear]

What a rambling, goalpost-shifting word-salad.

There's a difference between shifting goalposts and recognising that there are a ton of independent factors involved.
And once again you resort to insults.

[Cainntear]

Except that French was the established international language. How did English displace French?

I've never felt the discussion on the position of French as an international language or language of royalty or whatever to be particularly productive. French was just the language of very specific domains, while the pervasiveness of English is all-encompassing. This is of course due to globalization, but had French remained in its specific domains for a longer period of time (that of diplomacy) English would still be in the same position as today.

What you're saying is correct, but can't we put that another way?

English displaced French by being picked up by the wider population while French was still the international language of the elite; English displaced French from below.

In the context of this discussion -- the "marketing", the "conscious" -- that's not a minor point. English rose to prominence due to a combination of multiple factors and despite the elites and gatekeepers, not because of them. I'll stress again that that doesn't make it egalitarian or an unquestionable good... it just wasn't a deliberate act.

[Le Baron]

What a rambling, goalpost-shifting word-salad.

There's a difference between shifting goalposts and recognising that there are a ton of independent factors involved.
And once again you resort to insults.

'Tons of Independent factors'. I like that. It gives the impression it's an ungovernable, winding warren of complications, which can be drawn from at will like a giant Woolworth's pick-n-mix to counter anything put forward against this shape-shifting non-argument.

I'm actually blowing a raspberry at the monitor.

[Le Baron]

English displaced French by being picked up by the wider population while French was still the international language of the elite; English displaced French from below.

No, it didn't get 'picked from below'. It was put in its position, largely by force because the countries where it is spoken natively have engaged in economic and 'cultural' imperialism. To refer to the resulting uptake as 'picked' is ridiculous. EFL is pursued globally principally for purposes of economic and cultural inclusion, more than because they happen to find Dickens worth reading.

The discussion of French is diversionary here because it didn't get the same foot-hold due to the French having failed to build an empire the size and breadth of the UK's and latterly the U.S.

These are just the bald facts.

[rdearman]

Can I request that we all keep a healthy stream of debate in the thread and not an aggressive argument. A debate is a discussion, and a forum is a place to have a discussion. An argument is a conflict, and we don't want conflict here, this is a forum.

Actually there is some merit in what Cainntear says. It is pretty well agreed by historians that the imperial strategy of the French and the English were different. The English were mostly interested in having colonies to trade with while the French wanted an Empire to rule. The French imposted the French language and it was mandatory to be taught in colonies of France. The English didn't impose the language on the country, but did demand all administration of the colony was done in English. This meant that in order to "get ahead" you'd need to understand and use English if you wanted to move up in colonial administration. (Please note I am aware there will be exceptions to the blanket statements made above, and they are a generalization based on the dominant approach of two different countries during the period of colonization.) Apart from a period in the late 19th century when there were attempts to eradicate celtic languages in the UK (especially Welsh), the British government has always had a very relaxed attitude to the use of languages in its territories.

Therefore, French was using the stick, while English was using the carrot, and the carrot won out. But this was only in colonies directly administered by the English. As a worldwide phenomenon, colonialism wasn't really the catalyst for English dominance. If it was then Spanish would be the dominant language.

The vast uptake of the English language was NOT during the colonial period, but rather near the end of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800's. This was because the vast majority of scientific and engineering information was published in England and in English and once again if you wanted to "get ahead" then you needed English to be able to use the books and materials available. A century later and the dominance of the USA became a driving factor once again this was economically driven, but also there was a "coolness factor" at work in the latter part of the century since the majority of films (USA) and music (Britain) came from English-speaking countries.

Then finally you have the snowball effect. The more people who learn English, the more people produce in English, which means more to consume in English, which means more people learn English, ad infinitum.

I am sure that as the Roman Empire expanded the economic reasons for learning Latin increased dramatically and displaced the local languages. But like the British, the Romans didn't impose their language, it was just economically expedient to learn it if you wanted to "get ahead". Interestingly, at least to me, is that human beings are still using Latin or derivatives of that language 1626 years after the fall of the Roman Empire.

So let me circle back to the original post. Native speakers it is claimed are disrupting the English used by non-natives. But given the example of Latin it is possible that English may morph into a collection of "English Family" of languages, such as we now have the Romance languages derived from Latin. Or possibly because of the Internet and global communications English may morph into a standard language. But more likely I believe it will morph into languages, since already there are plans to colonize Mars. The distance and the lag will create an ideal b reeding ground for a derivative Martian English. But given the current state of the "Space Race" I suspect that it will be Martian Mandarin rather than English.

So perhaps what we are witnessing here with the non-natives using an English which is different from the native English is the beginning of a metamorphosis from English into other languages. Like Latin evolved into 6 romance languages. I also wonder how many Romans sat around the pub pissing and moaning about how all these foreigners were messing up Latin.

[Cainntear]

'Tons of Independent factors'. I like that. It gives the impression it's an ungovernable, winding warren of complications,

Any system involving billions of people around the world is going to be complex, isn't it?

which can be drawn from at will like a giant Woolworth's pick-n-mix to counter anything put forward against this shape-shifting non-argument.

I believe it's a complex system, you don't. Why are you continually ridiculing me for having a different view from you?

English displaced French by being picked up by the wider population while French was still the international language of the elite; English displaced French from below.

No, it didn't get 'picked from below'. ... To refer to the resulting uptake as 'picked' is ridiculous.

That's not what I said, and accusing me of "pick-and-mix" and then literally picking and mixing from two different sentences to distort my message just isn't particularly helpfully. I talked about people picking up the language -- i.e. learning it. A lot of people elected to learn English even before it exploded.

These are just the bald facts.

Then feel free to cite evidence.

[verdastelo]

Can you please share the papers you read?

Can't remember any specific ones of the top of my head. The TESOL masters was a few years ago now.

Then we can decide after seeing the evidence. For now, I don't believe that if you place an Indian, a Japanese, a German, a Nigerian, an Argentine, and an Australian in a room for the first time, everyone will immediately start blabbering and only the Australian will feel left out. On seeing some proof, I'll learn something and change my mind.

You can't blame the journalist for what a clickbaity headline writer stuck onto his article, and which even appears to have been taken off by one of the editorial staff.

I have worked for three companies, one of them was a newspaper in British Columbia. In each company, it was the editor who told the writers to create "meta titles" (clickbaity headlines). It can be different in NPR, but unless I talk to someone there, I cannot believe it. Also, the headline remains intact:

Asking a few people to enunciate their Ts and stop making baseball metaphors is a lot more straightforward than demanding a few dozen take on full-time English classes for a year or two, surely?

It depends on upon context. If I migrate to the US and ask my neighbors to "enunciate their Ts and stop making baseball metaphors", I'll be inviting trouble. I'm in their land, I should make an attempt to assimilate. On the contrary, I have noticed that in India many tourists often try to speak slow, but more than often the locals remain clueless. Methinks, it'd be more effective to learn another language than baby talk, if only at A2 level.

e. The English didn't impose the language on the country, but did demand all administration of the colony was done in English. This meant that in order to "get ahead" you'd need to understand and use English if you wanted to move up in colonial administration.

Will you call it a "carrot approach" if the Chinese occupy the British Isles tomorrow and declare Mandarin to be the sole language of high administration and universities? Then, anyone who wants to "get ahead" can learn Chinese. That exactly what the British did in India.

Apart from a period in the late 19th century when there were attempts to eradicate celtic languages in the UK (especially Welsh), the British government has always had a very relaxed attitude to the use of languages in its territories.

That's factually incorrect. Ngugi wa Thing'o has mentioned in his essays how he was punished for not speaking English. He is probably the most renowned African writer to write in Kikuyu, instead of English. He has written an entire book on the subject, Decolonising the Mind. I don't agree with all he says, but the book is still a good read.

In India, the English Education Act of 1835 has come to define the pivotal moment when the English forced Indians to study English. English speakers is India are still derogatorily called "Macaulay's Children", after the person who influenced of the act. Much of what he said is still repeated. I'll share two citations:

that the dialects commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither literary nor scientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into them. (Macaulay on Indian Languages)

I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. (Macaulay on Indian and Arabic Knowledge Systems)

Then, after saying "for it is proved by unanswerable evidence, that we are not at present securing the co-operation of the natives. It would be bad enough to consult their intellectual taste at the expense of their intellectual health. But we are consulting neither. We are withholding from them the learning which is palatable to them. We are forcing on them the mock learning which they nauseate," he went on to recommend "I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books." (Source: Minute on Education

That doesn't sound to me a "relaxed attitude". Also, it will be incorrect to say that because Macaulay has died and it is incorrect to drag him into the conversation. The system that was set up to impose English at the cost of local languages is still in place and is contributing to the English's status as the world's lingua franca.

These are just the bald facts.

Then feel free to cite evidence.

I wasn't asked. But here we go:

Ethnologue puts the number of non-native English speakers at 978,209,920. If I subtract the L2 learners of English in India and Pakistan, English suddenly has only 687 million non-native speakers, a drop of ~30%. Although 687 million is still formidable, it is not as daunting as a billion. Let's subtract the numbers for three more British colonies (Malaysia, Nigeria, and Kenya) and an American colony (the Philippines). The number now drops to 517 million. That means ~50% of non-native English speakers in the world today live in merely six former English or US colonies, where English was imposed. Add in more colonies and you will see that "picked up by the wider population" theory doesn't hold water.



You can argue that some people in those country would still have learned English. Probably as much as Indians learn French or Spanish today? I wanted to compare the English learners in Indonesia (former Dutch colony) and Malaysia (former English colony). Unfortunately, Ethnologue has no information on the number of L2 English speakers in Indonesia.

Here's another example: India and Nigeria are far away from any English speaking country. But Mexico is borders the US. It should have been thoroughly bilingual because of "marketing", the "conscious". It turns out that out of a population of 127 million, only 6.4 million speak English. About 5% of the population. The source is again Ethnologue. Marketing can go only so far.



Finally, English would still be formidable (just as German and Japanese are) without colonization, but not the sole lingua franca of the world.