urban%rcc@RAND.ORG ("Michael Urbanr,") (03/20/90)
> *Excerpts from mail: 17-Mar-90 ENGLISH/LINGUA FRANCA - GLO.. M.* > *Erskine-Richmond@ugw. (2447)* > But there are 5 going on 6 billion people out there, and if we really > want to get serious about globalization, then this has to be looked > at realistically - realism is in sticking with English, not for the > reasons of history, imperialism, or any other throw away insults. > The reasons are economics and existing numbers of speakers, and the > ready availability of teachers to pass on reasonable English to new > speakers of the language all around the world. Even Esperanto has no > such claims to these factors! Whenever I see this argument, I cannot help wondering how convincing it would sound if Japanese, German, or Chinese were the `de facto international language' and it were *my* language in the economic backwater. Here is a thought experiment in `cultural sensitivity' (at the risk of sounding too Californian): Imagine a future something like Star Trek(tm). Vast starships filled with diverse species travel the hyperspatial byways of our galaxy spreading the Pan-Galactic Culture. Zoom in to the bridge of one such starship...90% of the human crew are ethnically Asian, and everyone (humans and furry critters from Alpha Centauri alike) is speaking a language obviously related to Chinese. Be honest...your first reaction: how do you feel about this picture? Mike
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (03/20/90)
>> The reasons are economics and existing numbers of speakers, and the >> ready availability of teachers to pass on reasonable English to new >> speakers of the language all around the world. Even Esperanto has no >> such claims to these factors! >Whenever I see this argument, I cannot help wondering how convincing it would >sound if Japanese, German, or Chinese were the `de facto international >language' and it were *my* language in the economic backwater. I'm no language specialist so I may be wrong here, BUT, how many English speakers are there as compared to say Chinese speakers? After all, we're not talking the "ethnicity" of the language, we're talking about the specific langauge.. You're obviously throwing all of asia together! How many Japanese speak Chinese as opposed to English? -- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (03/20/90)
>I'm no language specialist so I may be wrong here, BUT, >how many English speakers are there as compared to say Chinese speakers? In very rough terms, there are a billion native Chinese speakers and a third to a half billion English. However, saying "Chinese" is one language is like saying "Romance" is one language and meaning French, Italian, and Spanish. Realize that every pair of adjacent towns from Rome to Paris speaks "the same language"--there is a broad and even spectrum between what we consider different tongues. A better criterion for a lingua franca is, how widely distributed are its speakers and how many people speak it as a *second* language? Knowing the major advantages of English in this regard, I'm still amazed at how often the news services pick up someone in the street in Berlin, or some Politburo member in Moscow, and interview them directly in English. A friend took a trip to China recently, and was often approached on the streets in Canton by people wishing to practice their English! All this to the contrary notwithstanding, I do not expect there to be any "international lingua franca" because I do expect real-time voice-recognizing translators to become available in the next 25 years or so, and probably in the next 10. --JoSH
reg@ksr.UUCP (Rick Genter) (03/20/90)
In article <2492@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >I'm no language specialist so I may be wrong here, BUT, >how many English speakers are there as compared to say Chinese speakers? > >After all, we're not talking the "ethnicity" of the language, we're talking >about the specific langauge.. You're obviously throwing all of asia together! >How many Japanese speak Chinese as opposed to English? >-- >Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE Think about it: the population of the PRC is ~1.25*10**9. The population of all of the English-speaking countries of the world (where English is the primary language) is < .5*10**9. Ignore different dialects in both languages; my guess is that in terms of *primary* language, Chinese wins out over English big-time. What I don't understand is why so many people are so hot on having a single language for all humanity? There is added value in diversity... - reg
GLOBALCP@UVVM.BITNET (Melcir) (03/21/90)
For the record, I am not advocating necessarily a single language for all humanity - just the need for everyone to be able to speak to one another in a single language! My point was that there are just so many languages on this planet that it would not be economically feasible to set up a voice-translating computer or any other sort to link them all together, since some of the smallest language groups are also the most impoverished. Just because some countries have endless budgets for research and general use of computers online, does not mean that it's readily available in all countries. Try travelling to some of the poorer countries and you will begin to think in their terms. This is why you don't seem to find any 3rd world country citizens arguing FOR multi-language mosaics for global communication. It is economically feasible only for them to tap into one resource that's been created, not to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. If we really want to democratize the planet, then we have to stop being paternalistic and realize that they are prepared to make the sacrifices which we get so huffy about letting them make. The important point to this argument is not in protecting them against us, it's in letting them get into this conversation in the firsst place! If the money and time we spend in trying to think for 3rd world people, was spent in genuinely doing something to bring them online, we would soon find out what they would like ... not what we THINK they want! MELCIR ERSKINE-RICHMOND, CO-ORDINATOR - GLOBALCP C% U.VIC. CHAPTER - WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY, University of Victoria, S. U. Bldg., P.O. Box 1700 VICTORIA, B.C., V8W 2Y2, Canada Fax: Canada + 604 + 721-8653 Bitnet: globalcp@uvvm Arpa/Earn/Janet: globalcp@uvvm.UVic.ca Unix: globalcp@uvcw.UVic.ca We need to plan now for a future we want to enjoy! - Study Futurism. Acknowledge-To: <GLOBALCP@UVVM>
KPURCELL@liverpool.ac.UK (Kevin 'fractal' Purcell) (03/21/90)
On 20 Mar 90 15:04:12 GMT Rick Genter (ksr!reg@net.uu.uunet) said: >In article <2492@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. > Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >>I'm no language specialist so I may be wrong here, BUT, >>how many English speakers are there as compared to say Chinese speakers? >> [deleted] >>Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >>InterNet: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE > >Think about it: the population of the PRC is ~1.25*10**9. The population >of all of the English-speaking countries of the world (where English is the >primary language) is < .5*10**9. Ignore different dialects in both languages; The big assumption, but you can't do this -- have you ever watched a Mandarin Chinese and (say) a Taiwanese Chinese speaker try to speak to each other. They will end up writing it down 99% of the time so that they can understand each other, or revert to a common language (like English). >my guess is that in terms of *primary* language, Chinese wins out over >English big-time. A lot of folks seem to ignore how much we have invested in Eurocentric languages -- have you considered the how we are going to notate a written lanaguage (or I expect its all going to be spoken -- spoken Chinese is a difficult for a machine to cope with as English). We have a defacto standard today -- its english, and you are going to have to work *VERY* hard to change that. I can't see the standard changing without a very good reason. > >What I don't understand is why so many people are so hot on having a single >language for all humanity? There is added value in diversity... > - reg I agree -- a centrally organised plan for 5 billion people just won't work. _________________________________________________________________________ Kevin 'fractal' Purcell ...................... kpurcell @ liverpool.ac.uk Surface Science Centre, Liverpool University, Liverpool L69 3BX "My karma just reversed over your dogma"
reg@ksr.UUCP (03/21/90)
My point was that there are just so many languages
on this planet that it would not be economically feasible to set up a
voice-translating computer or any other sort to link them all together,
since some of the smallest language groups are also the most impoverished.
Just because some countries have endless budgets for research and general
use of computers online, does not mean that it's readily available in all
countries. Try travelling to some of the poorer countries and you will
begin to think in their terms. This is why you don't seem to find any
3rd world country citizens arguing FOR multi-language mosaics for global
communication.
It is perhaps economically infeasible TODAY to "set up a voice-translating
computer or any other sort to link them all together," but I do not believe
that it will always be so. (And I am not sure what you mean by economic
feasibility; perhaps you meant technological feasibility?)
I think it is unrealistic to expect the poorer countries to teach their
people a nonnative language. They already are unable to educate large portions
of their population. Though the United States does not have "endless budgets
for research and general use of computers online," by being economically more
sound, it is more realistic for us to reach toward them.
If we really want to democratize the planet, then we have to stop being
paternalistic and realize that they are prepared to make the sacrifices
which we get so huffy about letting them make.
Compromise is clearly the way to achieve global unity. This does not mean
the United States (or any economically prosperous country) should "want to
democratize the planet." The United States has been paternalistic in the past
and probably will again in the future, but not always in the way you indicate.
MELCIR ERSKINE-RICHMOND, CO-ORDINATOR - GLOBALCP
C% U.VIC. CHAPTER - WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY,
University of Victoria, S. U. Bldg., P.O. Box 1700
VICTORIA, B.C., V8W 2Y2, Canada
Fax: Canada + 604 + 721-8653 Bitnet: globalcp@uvvm
Arpa/Earn/Janet: globalcp@uvvm.UVic.ca Unix: globalcp@uvcw.UVic.ca
- reg
(P.S., I find it ironic that an article expressing a pro-English as
a Lingua Franca attitude came from Canada, which itself is a divided
country with respect to its "primary" language.)reg@ksr.UUCP (03/21/90)
We have a defacto standard today -- its english, and you are going to have
to work *VERY* hard to change that. I can't see the standard changing witho
ut
a very good reason.
Much as French was the de facto standard for global communication 100-200 years
ago.
_________________________________________________________________________
Kevin 'fractal' Purcell ...................... kpurcell @ liverpool.ac.uk
Surface Science Centre, Liverpool University, Liverpool L69 3BX
"My karma just reversed over your dogma"
- reg