English vs. [none] as World/Global Language

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>Is English a "world" language
>because of cultural and commercial imperialism, because of
>international business and scientific and academic necessity, because of
>inherent factors that make it easy to learn, or all three?
>
> From my amateur's viewpoint, I've always assumed in regard to
>option number three above that English when spoken aloud is a very
>forgiving language. I'd like to get an average Scotsman, an
>anglophone East Indian and an anglophone West Indian in the same room
>together and see how they get on language-wise. I bet it'd work.
>
>Then we'd get them drunk and see how they get on after *that*.

English triumphed because of some combination of three things, I think:

(1) the British Empire, history's most extensive, the first to circle the
planet;

(2) the origination of the Industrial Revolution in Britain;

(3) the overwhelming strength of the US in many respects in the 20th century.

Once the Juggernaut gets rolling, the tendency is self-sustaining: many
learn English, because it's widely used, because many learn it, because
it's widely used ....

What fraction of the world's scientific literature is in English now? 75%?
And of the major current publications? 85%? 90%? We are far past the point
of no return. The characteristics of the language are irrelevant at this
point, I think.

I think it is reasonably easy to learn, and I think Grant Barrett's
experiment would work. (A little alcohol might actually improve mutual
understanding, providing non-violent subjects were employed.) But I can see
some advantages to Spanish, for example -- simple vowel system, mostly
transparent orthography. The major 'standard' varieties of spoken English
are certainly mutually comprehensible, and most even slightly educated
English-speakers can employ some 'standard' pronunciation (e.g., a national
TV/radio standard), I think.

-- Doug Wilson