The future of English

[athanasios]

For once, Chigger, I can applaud you for making such a serious effort to fight ignorance. I'm not even sure what argument Athanasios is trying to make: That Indo-European and Semitic languages belong to the same family? That Proto-Semitic is at the origin of all present languages on Earth? In any case, it's so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit response. Kudos to you for responding anyway.

Whatever is a threat to the world dictators is scorned and considered fringy. You should read the Bible and see that in the past there was one language only. Don't fall in the trap of the fascists. The stupidities (because that is what you invent when you have nothing to prove your thesis) SandChigger quoted made me laugh and laugh. And my question is still unanswered: If not the Semitic f.t.r. or p.t.r. which is the root?

Therefore English words are imbued with an air of superiority - what you call "trendy". To speak English is to identify yourself as a member (or aspiring member) of the privileged classes. To use native words instead of English borrowings is to identify yourself as a commoner.

The morons and the uneducated think that by speaking English they become something. Thus they verify their ignorance.

[Edric O]

Yes, in the beginning there was only one human language. But that was tens of thousands of years ago, when Homo sapiens was nothing more than a small group of stone-using hunter-gatherers somewhere in East Africa. Long before writing, civilization, agriculture, or even non-stone tools. It is extremely unlikely that the single original language had anything in common with any of the language families that exist today. It was certainly not Semitic.

[SandChigger]

There's really no way to prove whether there was only one original language or not. We're not even sure whether our language capacity is the result of a saltation or a gradual accumulation of mutations.

Language could go back as far as 150,000 YBP; it's definitely older than 40,000 years. By comparison, (Proto-)Semitic is attested no further back than 3000 BCE.

The Tower of Babel story as recorded in the Hebrew scriptures is certainly not acceptable scientific evidence on the issue. (That for the benefit of the miseducated Greek above who obviously misses the irony in his trying to "become something" by spreading his ignorance in English. )

[ErasOmnius]

I think what Sandchigger was talking about is that currently there is only world-wide Empire. The British-American one. Combined it has the largest armed services, commercial enterprises, and culture globally. To be identified by using the language of that Empire is beneficial economically for one's business entity.

Obviously, if another true continent-wide Empire were to be established, such as an Arabic one, with all of their vast oil and natural gas resources, it would probably become a smart business 'move' to learn and speak Arabic. Obviously, I live in a metro area where 4% of the population is descended from, or originally from, the Middle East. So it has become a smart business 'move' to learn the basics of Arabic.

[athanasios]

Language could go back as far as 150,000 YBP; it's definitely older than 40,000 years. By comparison, (Proto-)Semitic is attested no further back than 3000 BCE.

Distorter and manipulator of facts! I can similarly say that Semitic could go back...

Date Language

c. 2900 BC Sumerian

c. 2700 BC Egyptian

c. 2400 BC Akkadian

Some proper names attested in Sumerian texts at Tell Harmal from about 2800 BC.^[4] fragments of the Legend of Etana at Tell Harmal c. 2600 BC.^[5]

2900 - 2800 = 100 years difference is nothing! Before 3000 BC you are free to speculate. And of course since proto-semitic is a language after the confusion of Babel, the original language must have been different. No, I never stated that Hebrew was the first language like some fool 'Christians' do.

[Edric O]

Athanasios, what you just said about Proto-Semitic is exactly the same as what Chigger said earlier. He said it does not go further back than 3000 BCE. You pointed out that the earliest records are from 2800-2900 BCE. Same thing.

[SandChigger]

I think what Sandchigger was talking about is that currently there is only world-wide Empire. The British-American one.

I wasn't talking about any such thing. There's no "American Empire". If you want to talk about spheres of political, economic and cultural influence, fine. But to call something an "empire" dilutes the meaning of the word.

And weren't you the one bemoaning imprecise usage?

Athanasios...

And of course since proto-semitic is a language after the confusion of Babel, the original language must have been different. No, I never stated that Hebrew was the first language like some fool 'Christians' do.

LOL. I love the irony: you mock other "Christians" (obviously forgetting what Jesus supposedly said about calling your brother a fool) for assuming that Hebrew was the first language, yet yourself speak of "a language after the confusion of Babel". BABEL NEVER HAPPENED. :D

Athanasios, what you just said about Proto-Semitic is exactly the same as what Chigger said earlier. He said it does not go further back than 3000 BCE. You pointed out that the earliest records are from 2800-2900 BCE. Same thing.

Cheers, Edric!

There's no attested evidence of Proto-Semitic before those dates. Naturally, the language or its earlier stage probably existed, we just haven't found any evidence of it. (That could change tomorrow with news of a new discovery, of course.)

Because there's no hard evidence, anything we say about prior stages of the language must necessarily be hypothetical and speculative, but Historical Linguistics is one of the oldest branches of the science and its methodologies are quite robust. It's certainly not the case that any "speculation" is acceptable.

As long as athanasios continues to refuse to name his "mentors" and sources, I see no reason to respond further to his ignorant posts.

[Edric O]

I wasn't talking about any such thing. There's no "American Empire". If you want to talk about spheres of political, economic and cultural influence, fine. But to call something an "empire" dilutes the meaning of the word.

This is off-topic, but I'd like to point out that many historical empires in ancient and medieval times had less control over their far-flung provinces than the US currently does over the territories in its sphere of influence. There may be no such thing as an American Empire if by "empire" you mean direct colonial rule, but there certainly is an American Empire if by "empire" you mean a supremely powerful nation with many puppets and client kings.

America is not the first imperial power that strongly prefers to rule by proxy with the help of local chieftains instead of assuming direct control. In fact, most empires start this way. Most new empires begin by installing friendly puppets in neighboring countries, and only several generations later decide to remove those puppets and take direct control.

If the United States maintains its current power for another century, I predict that by 2100 direct annexation of countries defeated by the US military will be common.

[ErasOmnius]

This is off-topic, but I'd like to point out that many historical empires in ancient and medieval times had less control over their far-flung provinces than the US currently does over the territories in its sphere of influence. There may be no such thing as an American Empire if by "empire" you mean direct colonial rule, but there certainly is an American Empire if by "empire" you mean a supremely powerful nation with many puppets and client kings.

America is not the first imperial power that strongly prefers to rule by proxy with the help of local chieftains instead of assuming direct control. In fact, most empires start this way. Most new empires begin by installing friendly puppets in neighboring countries, and only several generations later decide to remove those puppets and take direct control.

If the United States maintains its current power for another century, I predict that by 2100 direct annexation of countries defeated by the US military will be common.

New Thread!

[MrFlibble]

Because there's no hard evidence, anything we say about prior stages of the language must necessarily be hypothetical and speculative, but Historical Linguistics is one of the oldest branches of the science and its methodologies are quite robust. It's certainly not the case that any "speculation" is acceptable.

Exactly. The urge to find triconsonantal roots everywhere is just so Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko...

Yet I must confess I find it depressing that pseudolinguistic "arguments" are being used to "prove" some national supremacy by many people - and such "arguments" are viewed as plausible and scientific by those who lack proper linguistic education :(

So would you say that we are currently going through a major turning point in the evolution of human language, in the sense that future language change will be profoundly different from the change seen in the past?

I don't think it's going to be profoundly different, it's just a new factor thrown in, and it can produce quite different results when joined with different other factors... So I was just saying that we cannot yet predict to what extent lanaguage development can be affected by it. As SandChigger said, the core mechanisms of language change will pretty much remain the same, but some parameters may indeed change.

This is more or less what I was thinking. In the future we should expect to see less linguistic diversity, both within languages (fewer dialects) and between them (fewer languages).

This trend towards convergence may be obscured by the fact that, as one language spreads and replaces others (thus reducing overall diversity), that language may acquire new dialects - and therefore give off the superficial impression of increasing diversity. I'm thinking of English here. The number of English dialects is probably increasing. But this is because English is slowly replacing other languages. Speakers of those languages switch over to speaking a new dialect of English instead. So the general trend is towards convergence (people that used to speak different languages move towards speaking different dialects of English).

Well, I mentioned above that convergence is basically a tendency within a single language (or a conglomerate of closely related dialects, if you will). I think that the process when one language replaces another is more of a social kind than purely linguistic. Such replacement can and will result in linguistic effects like the formation of sub-, super- or adstrates, of course, and those can potentially affect any of the languages involved in a profound way.

Ok, but what about English replacing other languages, while at the same time absorbing much of their vocabulary?

Once again, as SandChigger said, there are limits to this. In fact, I suppose that on a global scale, adopting foreign words isn't much different from changing the semantics and use of native words over time - bath cases are facts in the history of one given language (e.g. English) rather than full interaction between two languages that may result in the birth of a hybrid.

Much more interesting, in this respect, are all sorts of pidgin and creole languages. Those are the cases when a hybrid language arises, and develops over time, not from bilingualism, as we discussed above, but, conversely, from the extreme lack of command of one of the languages involved.

This is pure politics at work. English is the language of the world's rulers. Therefore English words are imbued with an air of superiority - what you call "trendy". To speak English is to identify yourself as a member (or aspiring member) of the privileged classes. To use native words instead of English borrowings is to identify yourself as a commoner.

I think this is only one of the many factors that can make words from a certain language attractive for adoption. I seriously doubt that non-English-speaking teens who excessively use borrowed Anglicisms want to signal their relation to the same group as American states-persons. For example, Russian gamers may use English borrowings, even in the presence of perfectly regular Russian words denoting the same concepts, as a form of a jargon, initially arising from the fact that the majority of computer games in the nineties were not translated into Russian. Basically, computer jargon has a lot of English loanwords, in part because it was easier to borrow an existing word for a new phenomena than to create a new word altogether, and partly because most software products were initially not translated into Russian. There's an opposite tendency to this as well, and after some time loanwords may become obsolete, being replaced by more familiar words. For example, after a period of using various jargonisms, both borrowed and newly-coined, for "e-mail", the majority of Russian Internet users now simply call it "почта" ('mail') or "ящик" ('mailbox'), i.e. the native Russian words that have existed for a long time in the language have simply acquired a new meaning.

Once again, this process brings many different factors into play. A loanword may become preferable simply because it is shorter or the speakers feel it sounds better. But of course, you are absolutely right that language is, and has always been, an important means of signalling one's social position.

This means that the fate of English loanwords and other borrowings may well depend on how American global dominance is ended. If the United States simply passes on the torch to a friendly power - or if America collapses and is mourned and seen as a lost beacon of civilization (like the Roman Empire was) - then English may very well remain associated with positive qualities for many more centuries. It could remain the language of science or other elite pursuits. In that case, English borrowings would entrench themselves into their adopted languages and probably every language in the world will end up sounding at least a little bit English.

On the other hand, if American dominance is overthrown, either physically (through war and revolution) or symbolically (the new global hegemon defines itself as hostile to the old American order for whatever reason, even if no actual blood was shed between them), then English may suddenly find itself perceived as the language of the defeated oppressors. In that case, we can expect English borrowings to be purged out of the host languages. English would still be spoken as a first language by a significant fraction of Humanity, but its influence over other languages would come to an abrupt end.

I suppose that the future of English does not as much depend on the future of America per se - after all, France is still alive and kicking, and has not devolved into a third-world country, yet the days when French was the major language of international politics and science are long over. Therefore, it's more of a question whether or not English gets such a powerful rival that will eventually replace it on the international arena.

[MrFlibble]

Here are a few interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_%28Gogate%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denglisch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinglish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konglish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taglish

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GratuitousEnglish

I'd appreciate SandChigger commenting on the last one, BTW :)

[athanasios]

That 'Execution in Progress' worthed all your effort! LOL

[ErasOmnius]

The future of English depends on the futures of a great many G20 countries, not just America. Canada, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand; and a few other non-G20s.

English will dominate. Meanwhile, learn Chinese and Arabic.

[SandChigger]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GratuitousEnglish

I'd appreciate SandChigger commenting on the last one, BTW :)

Thanks for that link! Loads of interesting stuff there.

What specifically would you like comment on? (I'm feeling lazy today!)

[athanasios]

Only today?;)

[arnoldo]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GratuitousEnglish

Part of the information provided in the link above which I found interesting was the issue of spanglish. To hear someone say "Donde vas a parquear (park)?" or "Que comiste de lonche(lunch)?" or internet lingo such as "Tienes que clickear(click) alli is rather common. English may survive in the far future as the basis for words of yet unknown languages in the same manner that ancient latin survives today in our modern vocabulary.

[athanasios]

Greeks in English speaking countries have also modified many words to sound more Greek:

for example:

floor > flory

car > caro (=cart)

mop > mopa

[MrFlibble]

What specifically would you like comment on? (I'm feeling lazy today!)

Not long before stumbling upon the TV Tropes page, I've read an article by Vladimir Alpatov (here's another article written by him, in English, on the same subject). Alpatov draws attention to the fact that, despite the popularity of gairaigo and the prestige they are associated with, the general level of knowledge of actual Enligsh in Japan is rather low. I've got the impression that the scale on which English words are loaned and incorporated into Japanese is unparalleled in any other language of the world, but maybe I'm quite mistaken here.

Also, Alpatov compares the modern situation with English borrowings in Japanese to the old times when the Chinese culture and language held a significant influence over the Japanese culture. It would be interesting to know your opinion on this subject as well :)

Another thing that interested me (I also read that in an article by V. Alpatov) that in the 19t century, some people in Japan really entertained the idea of switching the entire country from Japanese to English as the language of the people. I'm asking myself how much realistic those plans could be; on the other hand, I remember that some of the United States' national founders also expressed ideas of adopting a language different from English (e.g. French, which was the language of science and progress back then) to dissociate the new nation from the British oppressors.

[SandChigger]

Alpatov draws attention to the fact that, despite the popularity of gairaigo and the prestige they are associated with, the general level of knowledge of actual Enligsh in Japan is rather low.

That's true enough. I don't have any hard statistics, but the number of people you could find on a Tokyo city corner who could carry on a reasonable conversation in English is definitely going to be much smaller than in a similar situation in most of Europe, or even someplace like Hong Kong or Singapore. And it all goes back to the way the language is taught at the beginning; the students don't learn English, they learn ABOUT English. It's just another academic subject like math or physics or history... facts and rules to learn and use in solving exercises. By the time we get the kids at the uni-level, the damage is long since done. The teachers are a major source of the problem, too, considering that many...MOST of them are nowhere near fluent in the language. Most people end up actively disliking the subject and gradually forget what little they learned because they don't use it at work or at home. It really has no relevance to the majority of the population.

Which makes all the gairaigo that much more bizarre.

Every so often there'll be an article in the newspaper about how older people don't really understand a lot of the new words and, oh dear, what are we going to do, blah blah blah. The basic "Japanese" core of the language is in no danger, so a lot of the handwringing is just silly panicking. New product names, some youth slang, some borrowings from foreign media and movies, new coinages using honed down versions of older borrowings; scientific or academic terminology... and that's the lot of it. Frankly, when I was first starting to study the language, I would always get annoyed when I asked someone how you say something in Japanese and they would just give me back something borrowed from English. Of course, an important thing to remember is that the meaning of the borrowing is often changed subtly from that of the original. And since they like to whittle the words down, and Japanese has a smaller phonetic inventory than English, you get a lot of homophony. (Compare kara-kon, bodi-kon, oi-kon: color CONtacts; "body CONscious" (=someone being concerned with their physical appearance); farewell party (< oidashi-konpa = "throw someone out"+compa[ny]).)

I've got the impression that the scale on which English words are loaned and incorporated into Japanese is unparalleled in any other language of the world, but maybe I'm quite mistaken here.

Again, I don't have any statistics on this, and my own experience is no real guide because most of the people I know over here, both Japanese and foreigners, are fairly fluent in English (and Japanese) and we code switch back and forth and probably use more English in our Japanese (and Japanese in our English) than native Japanese do alone. Even with "normal" native speakers, there's probably a significant degree of nonce/one-time borrowings where people draw on whatever English they know/remember.

Also, Alpatov compares the modern situation with English borrowings in Japanese to the old times when the Chinese culture and language held a significant influence over the Japanese culture. It would be interesting to know your opinion on this subject as well :)

Yeah, that's an observation/comparison that's been made a fair number of times. :) And it's essentially accurate.

Another thing that interested me (I also read that in an article by V. Alpatov) that in the 19t century, some people in Japan really entertained the idea of switching the entire country from Japanese to English as the language of the people. I'm asking myself how much realistic those plans could be; on the other hand, I remember that some of the United States' national founders also expressed ideas of adopting a language different from English (e.g. French, which was the language of science and progress back then) to dissociate the new nation from the British oppressors.

Yeah, I've heard of that but haven't ever really looked into it and don't know much about it. There was talk maybe ten years ago or so about making English the second official language of Japan, but nothing really came of it. (There really wasn't any point to it! And it probably would have resulted in a lot of expense and more bureaucratic headache.)

I did saw something within the last couple of months about a company in Tokyo where they actually use English as the official in-company language. I'll see if I can find a link or some more info. :)

(Not really sure if this was helpful. Please ask for more detail where fuzzy!)

[MrFlibble]

That was very interesting, thanks! :)

[SandChigger]

One is glad to be of service. :)

[MrFlibble]

A Wiki Walk through TVTropes lead me to this interesting page:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GetTheeToANunnery

I knew Shakespeare liked to throw in double entendres (I especially like this dialogue), but about the jokes that were lost to semantic change I did not know much. This trope is the opposite of the above:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HaveAGayOldTime

[SandChigger]

One of my favorites has always been "rats, mice and other such small deer" (King Lear, IIRC), where "deer" used to many MEAN any small four-legged beastie. :)

[Edit: That was a weird mistake. Oh well.]

Edited March 7, 2011 by SandChigger

[Dante]

I knew Shakespeare was funny, but I didn't know he was that funny. :D