1. This is the guy from the Shakespeare reading video! 2. Ironic that "lingua franca" is an Italian word. 3. Bold prediction: the world will never have a global tongue, as feelings of Nationalism will never go away.
My native tongue has never been threatened. Therefore, before reading about this, I could not even imagine that language was something that was fought over. The United States of America is somewhat removed from countries that speak a different language from us, so I can see why I was never exposed to this. However, that does not dismiss the fact that the USA should be teaching its children foreign languages.
The chapter started by saying that those whose mother tongues are English might have mixed feelings about considering English a global language. He indicated that they might be resentful to find English taken and developed outside of its native countries. At first, I was surprised by this—I thought most of this kind of linguistic ethnocentrism focused on the idea that everybody should learn English, at the exclusion of others. Rarely do those individuals take into consideration the fact that language evolves and is the collaborative work of its speakers.
If everyone around the world were to adopt one singular language, I think it would have more of a negative impact on everyone. While it has the benefit of everyone being able to easily communicate face to face, one language taking over would eliminate huge pieces of cultures. On top of that learning a new language can open people's minds to a new way of life. And, with the way electronics are developing now, the language barrier is slowly becoming less of a problem because it is so easy to translate through technology.
. A language owned by everybody wouldn’t be really be owned by anybody. Everybody would own their own speech as they own their own mouth. Like a toy, language that is shared can’t really be played with incorrectly (although a toy can be made with a certain intent, and anybody could play with the toy in a way that doesn’t match the toymaker’s intentions) as the point of playing with something is to find joy in using it. I enjoy playing card games with friends and family, and I have found that the game of hearts I play with my parents isn’t the same game of hearts that my cousins play – there are house rules or preferences, rather.
Although the concept of a universal language sounds nice and beneficial to some, particularly those who speak the language most like to become the universal language, history shows us the costs of forgetting or killing a language.
This chapter was really interesting! I never pondered on how big the English language really was on a global scale and how it is influencing everything. It was eye-opening for me how we are suppressing other languages around us. The intentions of using English on a global scale are so just because they genuinely have a goal that benefits everyone. They want to be able to communicate easier and effectively when it is understood by everyone. However, those intentions harm the greater good for civilization.
Minority languages are already disappearing rapidly. If everyone in the world spoke English, for example, what use would there be for the tribal languages of Africa or the languages of Himalayan villages? Of course, that is assuming that all would have access to the ability to learn the global language. This presents a new problem: if a global language emerges, with it could emerge an “elite monolingual linguistic class.”
The spread of the English language, further encouraged by Native English speakers who would like to make their ability to be tourists easier, is kind of like the introduction of an invasive species.
The idea that English is beginning to be recognized as "the global language", is not hard to grasp for me. English speaking countries are known as dominant, thriving, first-world countries.
With English being my first, and truly only, language I have never thought about how its growing usage might be seen negatively. Anyone, whatever language it might be, would consider it a great ease for their first language to globally spoken. But, I can see why others of a lesser known language would have problems with it. What truly and accurately determines if a language is considered "good" enough to be globally recognized? It can lead to the fear of one's native language, something everyone holds so personally, will become the next dead language.
The word, pidgin, is a term that I had never heard prior to reading this excerpt and I found the idea rather interesting. Pidgin is basically when different communities with different languages start to trade with each other and mix elements of their languages together. I think that it is a very interesting term because it makes me wonder about how many words in today’s English is a product of this kind of exchange. There are several words that I know for a fact are from a different language and I always am curious as to why we use those words instead of making one for ourselves.
1. This is the guy from the Shakespeare reading video!
ReplyDelete2. Ironic that "lingua franca" is an Italian word.
3. Bold prediction: the world will never have a global tongue, as feelings of Nationalism will never go away.
My native tongue has never been threatened. Therefore, before reading about this, I could not even imagine that language was something that was fought over. The United States of America is somewhat removed from countries that speak a different language from us, so I can see why I was never exposed to this. However, that does not dismiss the fact that the USA should be teaching its children foreign languages.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter started by saying that those whose mother tongues are English might have mixed feelings about considering English a global language. He indicated that they might be resentful to find English taken and developed outside of its native countries. At first, I was surprised by this—I thought most of this kind of linguistic ethnocentrism focused on the idea that everybody should learn English, at the exclusion of others. Rarely do those individuals take into consideration the fact that language evolves and is the collaborative work of its speakers.
ReplyDeleteSpot on when you said that language is always evolving! What was yesterday isn't the same for tomorrow.
DeleteIf everyone around the world were to adopt one singular language, I think it would have more of a negative impact on everyone. While it has the benefit of everyone being able to easily communicate face to face, one language taking over would eliminate huge pieces of cultures. On top of that learning a new language can open people's minds to a new way of life. And, with the way electronics are developing now, the language barrier is slowly becoming less of a problem because it is so easy to translate through technology.
ReplyDelete. A language owned by everybody wouldn’t be really be owned by anybody. Everybody would own their own speech as they own their own mouth. Like a toy, language that is shared can’t really be played with incorrectly (although a toy can be made with a certain intent, and anybody could play with the toy in a way that doesn’t match the toymaker’s intentions) as the point of playing with something is to find joy in using it. I enjoy playing card games with friends and family, and I have found that the game of hearts I play with my parents isn’t the same game of hearts that my cousins play – there are house rules or preferences, rather.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the concept of a universal language sounds nice and beneficial to some, particularly those who speak the language most like to become the universal language, history shows us the costs of forgetting or killing a language.
ReplyDeleteCody Baggerly
This chapter was really interesting! I never pondered on how big the English language really was on a global scale and how it is influencing everything. It was eye-opening for me how we are suppressing other languages around us. The intentions of using English on a global scale are so just because they genuinely have a goal that benefits everyone. They want to be able to communicate easier and effectively when it is understood by everyone. However, those intentions harm the greater good for civilization.
ReplyDeleteMinority languages are already disappearing rapidly. If everyone in the world spoke English, for example, what use would there be for the tribal languages of Africa or the languages of Himalayan villages? Of course, that is assuming that all would have access to the ability to learn the global language. This presents a new problem: if a global language emerges, with it could emerge an “elite monolingual linguistic class.”
ReplyDeleteThe spread of the English language, further encouraged by Native English speakers who would like to make their ability to be tourists easier, is kind of like the introduction of an invasive species.
ReplyDelete(Emily Callan)
The idea that English is beginning to be recognized as "the global language", is not hard to grasp for me. English speaking countries are known as dominant, thriving, first-world countries.
ReplyDeleteWith English being my first, and truly only, language I have never thought about how its growing usage might be seen negatively. Anyone, whatever language it might be, would consider it a great ease for their first language to globally spoken. But, I can see why others of a lesser known language would have problems with it. What truly and accurately determines if a language is considered "good" enough to be globally recognized? It can lead to the fear of one's native language, something everyone holds so personally, will become the next dead language.
ReplyDeleteThe word, pidgin, is a term that I had never heard prior to reading this excerpt and I found the idea rather interesting. Pidgin is basically when different communities with different languages start to trade with each other and mix elements of their languages together. I think that it is a very interesting term because it makes me wonder about how many words in today’s English is a product of this kind of exchange. There are several words that I know for a fact are from a different language and I always am curious as to why we use those words instead of making one for ourselves.
ReplyDelete