Kling disagrees for now in writing, “the Internet revolution is boosting the economic prospects of the English speakers of the world. This includes the countries where English is primarily spoken, as well as the people in other countries who happen to be educated in English.”
I agree with the Kling thesis for the simple reason that American economic and military preponderance throughout the world allows English to stay dominant. English first was spread worldwide through the British Empire, which extended the language throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. From Hong Kong to Africa, the British Empire was home to nearly a quarter of the world’s population in the 19th century, and this allowed English to become the worldwide language. The emergence of America in the 20th Century merely cemented it. As long as America is the leading military and economic power, then English will still be the dominant language. With the emergence of India as a potential superpower and the rise of Indian information technology challenging the United States, English will continue to be the prevailing language in the 21st century. Bangalore in India is the Silicon Valley of Southern Asia and, perhaps, India may yet supplement America as the new economic power in this new century.
English is the dominant language throughout the world and this came as a result of the spread of the British Empire in the 19th Century and the emergence of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century. The result is that Western ideals have been spread throughout the world and this has enabled its values to triumph. With India soon to become the leading English-speaking nation, these values will no longer be a Western value but a worldwide value. There will be no longer be an East or West but democratic values that are universal complemented by the language of liberty: English.
By becoming the world’s language, English is moving the Anglo-culture throughout the world. The United States is part of a broader coalition that is slowly evolving. James Bennett terms this coalition as the “Anglosphere.” Mr. Bennett writes, “To be part of the Anglosphere requires adherence to the fundamental customs and values that form the core of English-speaking cultures. These include individualism, rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values.” Bennett observes that these nations share a historical story, which includes the Magna Carta, the American Constitution and the bill of rights. Knowing English does not make a person a part of the Anglosphere but knowing the language shapes the person in those values of the Anglo cultures.
Article comments
1 - Eric Berlin
Tom - Really nice job on this essay. There are some outstanding ideas here, which you collect and explicate on very well.
Please carefully review your work for typos, spelling, and consistent author names. It might help a lot to have someone edit your work.
Also, please include a link to Amazon with all posts.
2 - Aaman
Yep - good reading. Not a new idea, and one that was severely misused in the days of the British Empire, which is why I'm wary of it.
It's best(?) misapplication came from Sir Nirad Chaudhuri, Nobel Laureate and self-adopted British Empire apologist. He dedicated his opus "Autobiography Of An Unknown Indian"
3 - Stuart Payen
...the language of liberty: English.'
Oy. That rather contrasts with:
'Mr. Das said the English language, “…introduced Indian minds to liberal ideas and the ideals of the French Revolution...'
And I'm not sure about such statements as:
'The Anglosphere is an ever growing alliance that within the next half-century will include South Africa and India'
Living in South Africa, I don't see it joining an Anglosphere. It may be English-speaking but it is deeply opposed to the US and UK almost as a matter of course.
There have been other dominant languages in the past - and there will be others in the future. People smile if you mention space exploration in connection with this but it's not just fantasy. What if a planet is colonised mainly by, say, Japanese speakers and that planet becomes a dominant force?
Chaucer wrote for a very small audience.
4 - Stuart Payen
An interesting article arguing differently:
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/articles/Whatglobal.html
5 - Stuart Payen
It’s true that English is very widely spoken but I think those of us who speak it as our first language underestimate how shallow its roots are in many countries. We see people from all over the world being interviewed on CNN or BBC World in English; we see less of their many compatriots who don’t speak a word of it.
I suppose spheres of languages would leave Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Chinese etc. spheres, with a sphere consisting of former French colonies and a French-led EU. (Although France at various times ruled, or at least was present on, much of the planet, colonialism is less important in its history than European leadership and the new century could see an even more French-led EU â€" new projections show it as the largest country in the EU by the middle of this century, which I suppose goes to show how much all out discussions about the future are worth, since not long ago it was predicted that France’s population wouldn’t rise much at all. Of course that’s mainly a different discussion and anyway you can debate about whether a growing population and greater influence are all that desirable).
Countries do seem to be brought together by language, even against their will, but I think that should not be encouraged. It distorts views, blinding people to certain similarities and differences and making them see similarities and differences where there are none.
And, after all, this spread of languages is based to a large extent on the willingness of the speakers of those languages to beat up those weaker than themselves, which makes me rather uncomfortable. I’m sure it’s unrealistic but I wish children would be taught languages just for the languages and their literature.
Of course - more hopefully - the learning of one language needn’t mean the disappearance of another. In Tunisia, if I remember correctly, pupils begin schooling in Arabic (the official language), a couple of years later they study French (the unofficial second language), a couple of years later English and a couple of years after that German or Italian. I was on holiday there recently and a cab driver of mine could speak seven languages.
Thanks for the article. It's always good to see thoughtful writings, even when I disagree with them.
6 - Nancy
I'm always surprised English is as widespoken as it is, since while in some respects (lack of gender in nouns & adjectives, few cases in verbs) it's deceptively simple, the rest of it is (for those not born to it - and even seemingly for some of those who have been) a bear with the wildly irregular verb forms, spellings, & idiosyncrasies, not to mention the huge & growing vocabulary, especially in technical jargons. A recent article I read asserted that someone can "get by" at a high school graduate level with just 5-700 words of almost any other language, but in English, it requires 2,800 or more for a comparable 'level'. Of course, it's also an incredibly rich language, with synonyms & words taken from every language, so that almost everything can be spoken of in at least 2 if not more ways for the same thing. A good altho not recent book, but very entertaining, is The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson, for those who are interested. I'd also recommend watching the old PBS series on The Story of English, if you can get hold of the tapes.