Response to Recent Post Comments

Steve:

You make some great points and I agree that imperial roots played a major role in English becoming the most dominant language. My thoughts rest along the lines that English is spoken all over the world. It is expected by 2025, every Chinese person under 25 will speak English. There is debate whether future presidents of Taiwan should be required to speak English. It seems every high-impact position in today's economic/political sphere requires English of some kind - either spoken or interpreted.

My response to "simple and harmonious" is yes, it is easier for those who already speak it. It is also easier for those who don't speak it because there are major incentives to learn it economic, socially, and politically. It is also easier because there is more of a global distribution in English speakers (vs. pure numbers in which China wins...) It is also easier because we only produce one set of instruction, versue one for every major language (put that at around 15). We don't spend money in translation (or lost in translation.) It is also easier life or death situations, such as ambulances, emergencies, and hospitals. So, my question is, so what if it's simpler and more harmonious for those who already speak it? Don't we have greater issues to worry about?

Nana:

I liked your comments and regardless of what I said in my response to Steve, I still find it deeply respectful to learn the language of the country I am entering. While I think we should all learn a language, especially one that is specific, roots-based, and logical (for mostly scientific purposes), I feel that it should be just as accessible for people to learn other languages.

Joe:

I think learning a single language on a national and global level is extremely important. My question to you is, why doesn't it feel right? Because of my beliefs (as presented in the response to Steve) it feels wrong not to have everyone speak a common language.

I agree that it is important to consider the major changes in which language has been dominant. The major problem I see with this argument, though, is that there has never been a time in history where there is so much momentum in favor of a specific language. How many books are published in English? How many scientific discoveries are made and discussed in English? How many billions, if not trillions of dollars are managed through English-dominated corporations? Sure, much of this can change, but A LOT has to happen for this to occur, and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

The logic of our alphabet system rests in the fact that it consists of 26 letters. No more, no less. Sure, we make goofy words with those letters, but we don't make up new letters. To me, pronunciation and meaning are completely independent of the alphabet. Composition of words, and how those words are pronounced, are major issues in English - something I feel also has to be taken care of (by no means am I saying English is perfect). The argument I was trying to make is that Chinese is not consistent with an alphabet. If I were to say a word and spell it to the best of my ability, 99 times out of a 100, you could figure out what word I meant. With Chinese, I believe this number is dramatically lower.

Spanish-Language Ad Spending Remains Solid

This article particularly caught my eye. The statistics say total ad spending for the first half of the year is $2.88 billion, a 2.3% increase over the same period last year. Also, Spanish-language cable tv is up 75.3%, to $104.3 million, in the first half. A final statistic is that Spanish-language national magazines are also up 14.3%. This is surprising, and probably more so than most because I came from a non-diverse background, and I find it somewhat intimidating. Part of the reason I find it intimidating is because I've always had this notion that if you come to America, you should learn English. To provide what I consider a justifiable counter, if I wanted to visit China, I would impose upon myself a duty to learn Chinese before visiting.

My reason for this is multi-fold, and this post is in part a response to comments I have received. For simplicity and harmony's sake, I feel having to know only one common language is important. Whether it be English or Esperanto or Spanish, it matters, but not significantly. The reason I feel English is the most practical and efficient to learn (even though it's neither practical nor efficient as a language) is because A.) It's the language of business, B.) It's the language of medicine, and C.) it is the most internationally adopted language. When I say internationally adopted, I mean that people in positions of power and influence learn English as their second language more-so than any other language. Another reason I think English is important is because it is based on a mostly-logical alphabetic system. While there are some complaints, it's not like Mandarin with a difficult character system.

A final reason why we should learn one language on top of our native language (if it's not English) is that it makes communication much easier. In terms of programming languages, XML is considered somewhat of a holy grail because it is seen as a language that eliminates many other languages. It provides a common system of expression no matter what type of programming you are doing. Even though you can get specific with special-purpose programming languages, if that special purpose is no longer necessary, then the language is dropped because it no longer makes sense. In my analysis of programming languages, ideas and concepts are very, very similar, but the ease of which they are expressed, and their flexibility in creating dynamic solutions matters most. This is how I feel in general about languages, and even if English isn't the best language, I feel that there should be some language as the worldwide language.


Original Article: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6497920.html

Worldwide, a Language Dies Every Two Weeks

This article touches on a topic that I talked about in an earlier blog. I find it interesting that we have this recurring debate about languages and determining whether or not it is beneficial, if not necessary, to preserve dying languages. The more I read about the topic, the more perspectives I learn about that provide interesting dynamics to the topic.

One interesting point was that languages not only contain stories and history, but also have the ability to describe things like medicinal uses for plants. I never gave much consideration to this dynamic, and now that I take time to think about it, I find it extremely interesting and changing my perspective on the issue to be more sensitive to the grey areas of the topic.

One other thing they talked about are the "hotspots" for a dying language. These “hotspot” areas include Northern Australia, Central South America, Eastern Siberia and parts of the United States and Canada. The languages in question seem to come from minority groups, and I was somewhat surprised by our last discussion and also in this article how some languages have three or fewer speakers. Part of me just wonders how much we are losing from all of these languages. For me, when considering programming languages, the syntax (or words) are irrelevant, but rather how easy it is to create expressions and develop functionality are key. When considering other languages, it's hard for me to develop a cohesive understanding and strong position one way or the other. As of right now, the least we should do is catalog as much of the dying languages as we can, and analyze them for their content if they die out. If not, have people learn the language and learn as much as possible about the culture from the speakers.

Original Article: http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/2007-11-06-voa1.cfm