English as a universal language

[Tuthmes]

All those languages you listed are from the Indo - European family and they all use the Latin script (character set). Russian is an example of a language from the Indo - European family also except it uses Cyrilic as it's character set. There's not really a seperation between Spanish and English in terms of character set and language family.

Hmm yes, i've seen to be wrong. To my memory Indo-Europeen whas only the Germanic lingo's (must dust off some old books!). Not sure if we used latin or roman to specify spanish and its family (also there might be a differance between what the Dutch use and what the English do).

Even if you included those it still wouldn't beat Mandarin. Also, if you do that you also have to count all the people in other countries who can speak English which would include a noticeable chunk of people from China and India which again would dwarf Spanish. As mentioned previously the recent stats all seem to show Spanish in decline.

Funny enough its not an exact sience. You can count it anyway you want. Does it mean if all you can say "how are you?" in English, that you speak english? Etc, etc.

[Sharkith]

nice summary Xest. I wish I knew mathematics because I think there might be an equation to explain this.

For example Chinese development is gathering pace. There is an acute need at the moment for businessmen to learn Chinese Mandarin as a second language. I wonder how that will change the dynamic?

What is the main dynamic?

The number of persons speaking a language or the number of countries that speak it? Or is it the second language thing?

[Tuthmes]

For example Chinese development is gathering pace. There is an acute need at the moment for businessmen to learn Chinese Mandarin as a second language. I wonder how that will change the dynamic?

Yar, makes me wonder aswell.

[Cryn]

Sociology as a discipline has struggled to work out precisely the relationship between the individual and society. How much does society determine the individual? Or how much is society determined by individuals. Is society an aggregate of individuals? If so how is it organised in that way? One of the biggest problems of this old notion is the degree of freedom we have. How can we be individuals if everything we say or do is given to us by society for example?

I think the use of the term "society" is the root of the struggle and the question is much easier to tackle if you accept that the term society essentially means (whatever flavour definition you go for) "a collection of individuals sharing the same resources" and just talk about the individual. In my view, the answer is then quite simply:

All individuals both affect and are affected by other individuals with which they have contact.

Clearly there are a vast range of factors bearing on the type, direction and degree of influence, but those can be handled on a case by case basis.

The theory that I feel works out this problem most effectively is one that sees society as social communications. In this theory people are an essential part of the environment of society, it would not exist without them. The principal advantage of this theory is that we do not have to see people as being imprisoned in society and either party ot completely determined by it. Rather they exist and have a life outside of society. When they meet to communicate amongst themselves they generate systematic ways of communicating and that is when society emerges - fleeting but nonetheless there. Society organises those communications and enables human to express meaning to each other. It enables the co-ordination of expectations about each other.

Using the alternate explanation that I suggested, above, you would be saying that your expectations of others are set by the contact you have had with people in the past.

The similarities between expectations across a society are caused by patterns of contact. The people around me, who I have contact with (and affect/am affected by), have contact with many of the same people I do, so will have similar people setting their expectations. As you move further away from me, the number of shared contacts decreases and the variance in expectations increases.

Of course, it's not all about geography, but a LOT of it is about geography and going back through time it was more so. Nowadays electronic means of communication are making geography less of a factor and there have always been other factors (economics, education, etc).

BTW, it occurs to me that read one way your theory is another way of saying the same thing. I'm not 100% that it is, as I find the explanation a little abstract and am having to rely heavily on placing my own interpretation of it. The bit about "have life outside society" makes me think we're saying something very different.

[Xest]

nice summary Xest. I wish I knew mathematics because I think there might be an equation to explain this.

For example Chinese development is gathering pace. There is an acute need at the moment for businessmen to learn Chinese Mandarin as a second language. I wonder how that will change the dynamic?

What is the main dynamic?

The number of persons speaking a language or the number of countries that speak it? Or is it the second language thing?

It's probably related largely to a country's imports and exports. If I want to write a computer game and sell to the massive asian gaming market I need to know Chinese, on the other had if my product was so good the Chinese wanted it and I didn't bother to translate it they'd have to learn English to make use of it.

Of course this is a small time example, the product in question may not be a computer game, it could be the technology needed to assemble a nuclear power plant or it could even be the English speaking part of the internet. China seems to export a lot of things that don't need translating such as clothing, raw materials and such so whilst the businessman that needs to go and negotiate the deals may need to understand Chinese I'd guess for the most part many of the things China export aren't things that are going to make the West learn Chinese en-masse. That said, whilst the internet is a major driving force behind worldwide adoption of English right now it's probably aided by the fact only 8% of Chinese (although that's still a lot!) have internet access, if China became a true tech-nation, a nation where they have 50%+ internet penetration then there's going to be a whole lot more reason for a whole lot of people to learn Chinese. Ironically however, it's probably the Chinese goverment's stranglehold on their people to maintain power that is also going to choke the chance for Chinese to become the dominant international language.

One last interesting thought is with countries like China and India becoming giant call centres (amongst other similar service-based industries) for the west it seems like that's going to push a lot more Asians to have to learn English to get a job. How many call centres full of thousands of staff here need to know Chinese/Hindi/Urdu ?

[Cryn]

[quote="Xest"]How many call centres full of thousands of staff here need to know Chinese/Hindi/Urdu ]

None, but it seems to be getting to the point where the customer needs a smattering!

[Gandelf]

As others have said, I don't think there's any doubt that as far as geographical spread is concerned, English has to be the most widely spoken language. Even in countries where it is not a native tongue, you regularly see on the TV, cities and towns where road signs, shop signs etc. are in the native tongue and in English too. Again, as others said, International English is the most common language of the Internet as far as the number of countries who use it are concerned.

I acknowledge that as far as population is concerned, English isn't the most spoken language. I personally don't think that is the most important factor though, because if you're the most highly populated country in the world and you're the only country who speaks the language of your country, then it would be wrong to expect all the other nations to learn your language just because of that.

If you want to communicate with the majority of the countries in the world, then English wins hands down. I don't say that out of pride, because I'm English, but because it's common sense and blatantly obvious as the best way to communicate.

If we are moving to a single global language, then English is the most obvious choice AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

Regardless of what has happened in the past, concerning the spread of English and to a certain degree, the British Empire, we have to take a reality check and realise that the way things are, are the way things are. Just accept it, without any feelings of animosity towards English or the English speaking people and move on.

As a side note, I very much doubt it's because of any lack of intelligence that the British don't seem to learn as many languages as people from other countries do, but I guess the reason is mostly because the British don't feel they need to learn other languages, when others are learning English anyway. If English is destined to increase with regards to the number of people/nations who speak it, then why bother to learn another language? It would seem illogical to perpetuate the speaking of many languages, when one would suffice. (Admittedly, I say that with tongue in cheek and don't expect others to agree. After all, national pride will always make people prefer to use their native tongue).

[Gandelf]

[quote="Xest"]One last interesting thought is with countries like China and India becoming giant call centres (amongst other similar service-based industries) for the west it seems like that's going to push a lot more Asians to have to learn English to get a job. How many call centres full of thousands of staff here need to know Chinese/Hindi/Urdu ]

The ironic thing though Xest, is that a number of British companies are moving their call centres back to Blitain, because they were getting too many compraints from customers that they could no understandee the stlange foleign accents of the Engerish speaky Indians and Chinese.

[Lairiodd]

nice summary Xest. I wish I knew mathematics because I think there might be an equation to explain this.

I already gave it . Well, not a formula, but the mathematical term is Nash equilibrum.

Imagine this game.

Everyone in the "audience" has a button for A, B, C, D.

The rules of the game are that you get £10 if you guess which choice most of the people will make and there is no communication allowed between audience members.

Round 1 might be

A: 33%
B: 21%
C: 37%
D: 19%

The host says "congratulations, everyone who picked C gets £10".

Round 2 might be

A: 12%
B: 7%
C: 70%
D: 11%

The results of round 3 would probably be C > 95%.

What is interesting about a Nash Equilibrum is that it isn't necessarily the most efficient solution.

For example, lets say after everyone picks C for round 3, the host says

"Ok, if A, B or D wins, everyone who picks the winner gets £15"

It is quite possible that C will be able to maintain its position as the winner as if you switch you have a 1 in 3 chances of picking the wrong choice even if A, B or D wins.

Including the fact that C might also win, you have an even lower chance of winning. Thus, the best solution for the individual is to stay with C. Most make that choice and C wins.

If everyone swapped to A, they would all be £5 per round better off.

[<ankh>]

If English is destined to increase with regards to the number of people/nations who speak it, then why bother to learn another language?

Because it might just make you understand the rest of the world better. Sometimes its just not enough to know your own language - even if most people understand and speak english - you might actually learn more if you bother to learn their language. There are humour and ways of thinking that doesnt always make sense if you translate it into english.

After all, national pride will always make people prefer to use their native tongue)

This one isnt true either. I know loads of people who prefer books/movies and music in other languages than their native tongue. So to say ALWAYS is wrong. I also know loads of people who prefer to use other languages when they write. (you can't speak for anyone else but yourself in this case Gandelf..there are people that will agree with you - but you can still ONLY speak for yourself)

/Ankh