LL-L "Language politics" 2008.08.27 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 27 August 2008 - Volume 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: M.-L. Lessing <marless at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.08.27 (02) [E]

Hello Mark, hello all,

your posting just reminded me how annoyed many people are that English is by
force made the dominant language in the European Union, too: almost every EU
job offer requires English as a native language. To apply with "only" very
good acquired English is useless. And this is specially absurd regarding
that English speaking nations are far from being the most active or
dominating in the Union. Here it's: Why English? In your golf players' case,
it might be: Why not English? Still, there is something unfriendly in the
measure. And unfunny. I imagine it is much funnier to communicate with a
Korean golf player by means of gesture, using the golf equipment and the
free space... It soon would send us rolling on the lawn with laughter, I'm
sure. A course in elementary Korean might be great fun too. Why are people
so stupid? It's difference that gives zest to life and makes it interesting.
"Wenn alle Menschen gleich wären, würde im Prinzip einer genügen" -- das ist
verdolmetscht: "If all people were the same, in principle one would
suffice."

Herzlich

Marlou


----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language politics

Moin, Marlou! What a rare treat to hear from you!

I find the predominant native English requirement outrageous. It ought to be
outlawed. If they want to guarantee certain levels of proficiency they
should institute a test system (anonymous, so names can't be used as
indicators on whose basis to discriminate).

While such a requirement doesn't seem to be against the law in the US (but
I'm not sure, because it's probably a state law thing and there may be
differences), you encounter such a requirement fairly rarely in job
announcements, and then it tends to be "native or near-native," which to me
seems much more reasonable in most jobs. I think that in this regard things
have become more relaxed and fluid in this country, probably because there
are no clear dividing lines in this very diverse population. Many people
don't use English as their first language, but no one would know because
they speak and write it like native speakers because they used it all their
lives. These people make up a large chunk of the population, and this is why
people here tend to be less discriminating about it. Or look at our Mark
Brooks who's been using Spanish as a second language most of his life and
uses it in his work. All those Spanish speakers he talks with on the phone
may not even know that he isn't a native speaker.

The few times I see the "native speakers only" clause is in foreign job
adds, typically from countries with far less diversity where people still
can't wrap their heads around the idea that people may have native-like
proficiency in non-native languages, or that in many cases "excellent" or
"near-native" are more appropriate or realistic than "native".

Diversity and the opening of the mind it requires is still a very difficult
thing for most people in the world to deal with.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080827/a5065781/attachment.htm>