American English

Dear ,

Good to hear from you! I'm doing fine. Thanks very much for forwarding this article. Here's my take.

It is rather absurd to assume one can define THE English-speaking world in 2010 if it was meant to be a geographic sphere. What countries belong to it? Does it include such countries as Rwanda (which, as you know, recently ditched French in favour of English)? Does it even include the United States, where more and more foreign-born citizens live without having to speak English? The question would have been (a little) more pertinent if stated—Shakespeare permitting— "All those who speak English should accept American English."

Of course my answer is a flat no. I do not see any merit or feasibility. An American English speaker and an Indian English speaker may have trouble understanding the intricacy of each other's expression, but do we all not even among compatriots? Suppose for a moment all people speak American English. I am positive there will be more, not less, difficulty in communication as most people find this new tool too foreign and incompatible with their thoughts and cultures. Diversity in languages and our awareness of it do not hinder but enrich our encounters and exchanges.

I also have a problem siding with McCrum. His idea that it is "Globish" that is going to dominate the English-speaking world (or the whole world as he suggests in his book) is equally ludicrous.

Quoting McCrum from the article:

Mr Nerrière, posted to Japan in the 1990s, had made a brilliant observation. In his work for IBM, he noticed in meetings that non-native English speakers in East Asia were communicating far more successfully with their Korean and Japanese clients than competing British or American executives, for whom English was the mother tongue. Standard English was all very well for Anglophone societies, but out there in the developing world, this non-native "decaffeinated English", declared Mr Nerrière, was becoming the new global phenomenon. In a moment of inspiration, he had christened it "Globish".

It is not because East Asians were speaking "Globish" that they communicated more successfully. I would humbly submit that it is because our native tongues share the grammatical structure. Those who try to speak English as a foreign language tend to directly translate their thoughts from sentences in their native tongue; therefore, when their native tongues share the grammar, which Japanese and Korean do to a great extent, the speakers have a better chance of extrapolating what the others have in their heads by listening to their English, however "unnatural" or "broken." It would be different with a Japanese native speaker and an Arabic native speaker who are not experienced in communicating in English.

To me, what is happening is quite simple. More and more people are speaking English. It does not have to affect the English that native speakers have grown up with, including any sort of characteristics they have. Non-native speakers are increasingly using it for communication, with sentences that are sometimes incomplete. Why make it any more complicated? "Globish" is just a failed label that captures nothing intact. Nerrière's attempt to consciously develop specific "Globish" vocabulary eerily resembles Newspeak. Doubleplusnongood—or rather, rubbish.

Have a great weekend!

Best,
jjsmith