Should English be standardized as the worldwide primary language?

  • Yes, it would benefit everyone.

    America is the metropolis of the world. I don't know that there's any other place where there's such a diverse variety of cultures. Most cultures have a stake in America. America, sort of, belongs to everyone. And, in America, English is the primary language. America is not just about physical land. The United States reaches all corners of the Earth. Just about every culture in the world would be served well if they could communicate effectively with The United States of America. What better way to communicate with someone than to learn their language? I think that the benefits would outweigh the losses if English were to be appointed the worldwide primary language.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • English is already the Worldwide primary language

    Business, trade, and the internet are all now primarily in English. If the rest of the world is to be able to adapt they have to instruct their people in English, which is what they are already doing. Denying English is just being stubborn and prideful, it's time to adjust to the 21st century.

  • This Is America

    If you don't conform, you suck.

  • Base language for all to understand

    Important for all the world to be able to communicate. English is one of the biggest languages and would be better for people to understand it and be able to speak to others!! Its not to say that english is better but it is the universal language and should be taught and spoke especially by people who reside in America. It does not mean you can't be bilingual or speak what language you choose but when communicating with someone, its good to have a universal language.

  • Speaking in English won't make you forget your country.

    The English Language won't rob you of your culture. You can still speak your own language anytime. The only reason why we have English as a universal language is for us to communicate with each other. This does not mean that French, Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, etc. languages are less beautiful than English. Speaking in English won't mean you neglect your own country. Brothers and Sisters you must understand that this world needs us, the human race, together. Let us not start a World War III just because of an argument about whose language deserves to be the primary language. We need to understand each other, that's what matters.

  • Be gone with nationalism.

    Your linguistic heritage is far less important than the continuity of the world and humankind (consider the current international relations and technological means that countries have to destroy one another). English is currently the international standard and is being learnt by children in school over the entire world. If we are to gain more understanding of one another, we shall need to move towards one another and a common language will help us communicate that much easier. I see many people speaking of pride (please, pride is exactly what causes suffering) and English being hard to learn. English is actually one of the easiest languages to learn (even for people who do not speak a language that belongs to the same language group: look it up if you must). From a non-native speaker.

  • 'The 9D' Our own entry for the debate on Engish as a world language

    We think that it is positive to have English as a world language, because people can understand each other much better. The language is also useful for business and trade. There are already peple who are talking English as a second language. It is good as a second language, because everyone can decide on his own if he or she would learn the language. English is already the language of the internet. But there are also problems. The minority who does not know the language must learn it by heart. And there could be also other languages which can be world languages. To have only one world language can destroy the culture and the identity.

  • Yes, because a primary worldwide language would be beneficial for international communication and commerce.

    English is already the de facto language of the Internet, and many foreign countries teach English as a second language as a mandatory subject. Also, because of the influence of Hollywood with respect to television and movies, many people learn how to speak English anyway. An international language is important to facilitate communication and trade. And as one that is frequently used already, English is the most appropriate choice.

    Posted by: SlyHymie
  • English should be global lanuage

    If a member from India goes to Europe and France, it becomes difficult for them to communicate with each other. So, if English would be the universal language it would be easy to communicate and there will be no religious fighting and everybody will stay in happy and harmony. Let's make English the common language

  • English is the universal language

    Everyone should all know a language and English is the universal language. We need one to be able to communicate and its used for business deals etc. It is not to say English is better and people cannot speak their own language but it is good that people can communicate and understand one another easily!

  • Unfair & disrespectful

    Why should English speaking people learn to speak other languages? Why even ask this question? Considering English is not the most widely spoken language in the world. That one is actually Mandarin, Spanish comes second. Why don't you almighty English speaking people get out of your ivory tower and learn Mandarin, in exchange, Mandarin speaking people will learn to speak to you in your language. Respect is a two way road. There is no respect in and demanding the world to speak your language to your convenience, while you pay zero effort in trying to communicate in other people's convenience.

  • Standardizing a language worldwide is an impossible task given the fact that language are constantly changing.

    Despite the normalizing effects of modern media such as the internet and television, language is always changing. Any attempt to standardize a language worldwide will fail because languages will diversify to mutually unintelligible dialects over time. This is shown by the fact that many separate varieties of English exist in the world, which over time may drift further apart in similarity.

    Posted by: eclair910
  • We would all be the same.

    If we are all speaking English then our own way of speaking is taken away from us. We would all know what each other are taking about and then you would have no identity. It would also be impossible as there are so many different languages. So thats my reason.

  • There should be a primary worldwide language but it doesn't need to be English.

    The benefits of having a worldwide language are evident:
    -No Language Barrier
    -Easier international exchange
    -Wider variety of information (right now I can only learn stuff from those who write in English, but if the greatest Finance book in the world is in Chinese, how do I learn from it?)
    -International Business could grow faster than ever
    -Information management could be maximized in both effectivity and efficiency

    However, why English?
    The best way to go about such a large change would be to study the subject for years, and ask questions such as:
    -Which language is easiest to learn?
    -Which language allows for the most efficient ways of communication (easy to speak, easy to write & read, etc)
    -Which language allows for the greatest linguistic variety whilst maintaining a "standard" language which can be understood by all humanity?

  • Native English speakers would be at a disadvantage.

    As a native English speaker surrounded by others, I know I will always be at a disadvantage in terms of languages in my life. Schools in other countries already strive to deliver English to their students better than my country delivers other languages to our students. If I were to learn a language that wasn't deemed as popular, for example, Japanese (which I have an interest in learning), a big reason for not learning that language is that people don't need it as the younger citizens are educated to learn English at school and will have a better knowledge of the English language than I would of the Japanese language.

    If native English speaking people were more exposed to other languages and at a rate where it would give them a good understanding of it, then it would be more beneficial as then, at least two people who know English, but one who is a native speaker and another who is not, they would be more equal in terms of languages as they would know the minimum of two, and have both worked to learn the other.

  • Standard Language is a Bad Idea

    Cultures throughout the world use language as not only a functional part of day to day life, but as a reminder to owns heritage. If we were to standardize English as the universal language, then many people throughout the world would lose that valuable link to their past and be alienated.

  • Languages are equally as important.

    All countries should be free to speak their own languages and not just learn one common language. If you wish to do business with a country you should learn their language and I see this as just an easy way out for English speakers as most of us are famously lazy at learning other languages and this should change. Languages are a product of a countries culture and people and these languages should be studied, all languages are of equal importance and English will soon stop being a dominant language as other countries expand and grow. So simply NO English absolutely should not be the sole language.

  • The basic knowledge (8 school-years) can be learned effectively only in the fist-language-medium of instruction (not necessarily mother-tongue, but one, acquired before age of five).

    English should be standardized as one of two (equally treated!) media of 50:50 bilingual (in some countries 33:33:33 trilingual) models of global uniform primary (8 years) education. In this way the following (and many others, equally desired) purposes will be served:
    1. Maximum effectiveness of English as a language of human civilization development.
    2. Upholding and further development of all currently existent indigenous cultures (which again is a powerful factor of diversity, therefore creativeness, therefore research skills, and, finally, human society development at its highest potential).
    3. Obtaining all range of recently discovered benefits of multilingualism - from enhanced memory capacity and inhibition to prevention of dementia in old age.
    4. Peaceful and tolerant multicultural society, as multilingualism entails multiculturalism.

    A firm but solvable obstacle for globally standardized multilingual education is a low level of English language skills of the teachers in developing countries.

  • The English language should not be officially globalised

    I strongly disagree with the question. Languages represent the growth of a certain culture and its development over centuries and centuries of a certain place's history. There are small events that can be pinned down to large numbers of nuances in for every language. For example, Old English began to deviate from other Germanic dialects due to the Anglo Saxon invasion of England, or the intense transitional period from Old to Middle to modern English which can be pinned down to the Norman invasion, something which completely changed the vocabulary, grammar and phonology of the english language. However, I digress, this is but an example to serve my full point-which is that destroying languages, or replacing them with english means destroying cultures, forcing English or more likely American culture upon others with it. Having said that, even if we were to to utilise english in that way, I believe it would be an impractical choice. English is a language susceptible to change, and I don't mean modernisation. Looking back on my example before, think about how much English changed just because of those French invasion, something which wasn't exactly uncommon in medieval Europe (invasions and occupations). This is not the only example, think about the way the internet has begun to take its toll on English, 'y do u wnt to do tht' can be used instead of 'why do you want to to do that', something which is starting to spread outside of the internet, ellipses being used for speed has moved into everyday speech 'get out (of) the way' is now a common phrase. Where I am going with all this is that even if we were going to standardise a world language, which i am strongly, STRONGLY against, I think English would be possibly the least practical of choices, its susceptibility to influence being all too real. If English was used in that way, it would quickly begin to grow in different ways and start the process all over again, but with a strange mix of French and Anglo Saxon was roots, rather than naturally occurring language development, along with 2013 years of history being destroyed. Language individuality almost defines a culture, what it stands for, and how it works, it is the underlying definition of all that the certain culture has experienced, it is a record of history.

  • Our beautiful world bereft of all its diversity ... I don't think so !

    It would be unfair towards the majority of the world population (which is non-anglophone) and would cause a huge cultural loss. Like many people have - correctly - stated here: language is not just an (artificial) means of communication: it is bound to ones way of thinking, ones history, ones culture, ones deepest feelings and vice versa. I despise people who seek to impose English on everyone, and quite ironically: mostly these people are no native speakers, but ignorant foreigners who somehow believe that their smattering of English makes them cosmopolitan and international. Besides, there are far more logical and consistent languages than English ...

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.