In response to Travis's Nov. 12 post in response to my comment in response to his Nov. 7 post.
Travis:
Upon rereading your previous post (Nov. 7) I realized that what you were talking about is not necessarily a common first language on a global level, but rather a global second language. This feels much more acceptable to me.
My initial concern was regarding a common first language. In any given language, when a person is trying to translate to a different language, there is inevitably a word or phrase which doesn't quite translate. In switching to an international first language, each of these nuances would be lost. Each frame of mind, each instance of a thought process these words represent would be eliminated by the steamroller of a common first language. Similarly, systems of logic based on syntax outside of those of the new global language would not translate into the new first language. These lost paths to ideas could be the key to the next scientific breakthrough or a better theory connecting the different kinds of human experience.
In the new context of a global second language, I find the idea much less intimidating. The main risk, in my mind, associated with such an endeavor is that the common second language may become the only language, or so dominant as to essentially be the only language, and all of the above concerns about a common first language recur. (There are also the concerns for the literary world as seen in the link below.)
As for the choice of English, I still feel, in the long run, it is a fairly arbitrary choice. Any such global language will inevitably change. Change seems to be the only constant in history. I people say this is the first time in history these conditions exist, but that's what the previous empire said. Rome can never predict it's own fall. English might be the best choice now, but I doubt it will eternally be so.
You mention in the Nov. 12 post, possibly changing English. Noah Webster suggested something similar to distinguish American English from it's colonial parent. His changes can be seen in colour and color, and other differentiations in spelling, but this was only the start of his ideas for spelling reformation. He wanted to go so far as to do away with silent e and other superfluous letters in words, so that eventually English would be purely alphabetic in its phonetics., each letter making one unique sound. A would-be useful trait for a global second language.
For an interesting perspective on what could come of English as an international second language, check out the free online book "English Next" found here: http://goingglobal.corante.com/archives/2006/02/24/english_as_a_second_language_english_as_a_global_language.php
For a look at what may be lost on a literary level: http://www.cepr.org/press/DP2055PR.htm
2 comments:
Wow! Great post! I really enjoyed the response and agree that a global second language would be less daunting and presumably more acceptable (and less controversial.) In response to the loss of different breakthroughs, patterns, unique aspects, that is true of anything. One thing I find particularly interesting is that darwinism, in itself, has proven to weed out the stuff that hasn't been extremely helpful, and has replaced it with that which is helpful. Another approach is to continuously think of the main language as changing as well. Even though there is a primary language, there is always change that results in something new or amazing. We make up new words all the time, for example. But, this is getting to be a long post. Again, great job!
Yeah dialogue.
Post a Comment