Politics

[jbor]

on 17/2/03 12:15 AM, Terrance at lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:

> For
> there is, particularly now, a sense in which the heterogeneity and
> versatility, flexibility and variety of the English language seems to
> guarantee to its users their individual right to think and to express
> their free thoughts without encumbrance. This freedom and flexibility is
> unmistakably English.  English has no equivalent to the  Academy
> Francaise and it's safe to say it never will because the idea that
> Language can or should be subjected to the dictatorial control of an
> elite sitting in an ivory tower is repugnant to English language
> speakers. It is as offensive and as obnoxious as censorship itself.

Some linguists (eg. Braj Kachru, Robert Phillipson, Alastair Pennycook)
would argue that the rise of English as a global language is either or both
a vestige and/or an instrument of cultural and political imperialism. They
predict that because of the Internet and the increasing reliance on English
as a lingua franca in commerce and communications the rate of "language
death" will continue to increase until most of the world's languages have
been wiped out as "living languages". And, of course, language and culture
are very closely interlinked.

The French Academy have tried to compete with English by moving to eliminate
those Anglicisms which have crept into the French language, and some
provinces apparently do not allow parents to christen their children with
non-"French" names. Highly-qualified English teachers in China who are
Chinese cannot get jobs, while any Briton, American or Australian with a
third-grade education would get snapped up (an exaggeration, but you get the
picture).

Not saying I agree or disagree, just noting that these arguments are being
made quite persuasively by some academics working in the field.

best