English: Friend or foe?

As technology and globalization connect cultures and people like never before, countries across the world are approached with an important decision: adapt English or fight it? English has become the dominant international language of business, and countries adopt it mainly for this reason: to ease trade and interactions. Although, some fear it threatens their heritage. As a result, there has been a surge in the use and revival of native languages, in opposition to English.

For example, in Glasgow, the city council is launching a 3-year plan to increase the use of Gaelic. It will be used for signs and official council communications. Officials hope to eventually see Gaelic used in everyday conversation, especially amongst the youth. Glasgow City Councilor Aileen Colleran notes, "Gaelic has a very special place in the history of Glasgow." The Scottish in Glasgow feel that Gaelic is an important part of their identity and want it to become the dominant language, in place of English-the language their historic oppressors, the English, forced onto them. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8605014.stm for more details. Also in the UK, an avid blogger comments that politicians who integrate American phrases into their language should be reproached. He calls it "Americanized lazy talk,” says "What I...object to is Brits who feel that they gain something by adopting American usage," and he even calls the politicians "presenters archly trying to sound like shock jocks." Although Brits and Americans speak the same language, the pronunciation is different and certain phrases are unique to each. The blogger calls for preservation of what he calls the Queen's English. He considers the British English to be superior and more proper than American English as do many other Brits who commented on his blog. One comment reads, "Are we trying to become the fifty-first state?" and yet another commenter writes, "The corruptions hurt my old ears." Humorous yet insightful, these posts show that some Brits feel America's English is tainting their dialect, and they wish to reverse and halt these changes. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7555717/Martha-Kearney-should-stick-to-the-Queens-English.html for more comments.

In Ghana, the Upper West Regional Minister, Mr. Mahmud Khalid, encourages Ghanaians to use local languages instead of English and to ensure that English words don't seep into these local languages and alter their integrity. He argues that,” if...allowed to continue, it would lead to the erosion of aspects of the country's unique culture and thereby deny future generations the opportunity of sharing in the rich cultural heritage of the people." See http://news.peacefmonline.com/social/201004/41349.php.

Some countries, however, such as South Korea, encourage its citizens to learn English and use it in the workplace. South Koreans also maintain a strong sense of national and cultural pride. In Georgia, President Saakashvili is leading what he calls a "linguistic and computer revolution" that will provide XO mini-laptops to children to help with English learning will be mandatory starting in first grade. He believes that teaching the children English will ensure a bright future for the nation and its citizens. See http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22153.

So how is it that these countries can maintain a balance while others cannot? I believe it is because certain countries are more confident that their cultures will be preserved from generation to generation while others are greatly threatened by the presence of English and have already started to see the youth neglect their heritage in favor of English and the pop culture often associated with it.

Locals often fear that English will taint or replace their native language and/or dialect, so they focus on the preservation of culture through language. It's a legitimate and important concern. What makes the world so unique are the differences that exist between foods, traditions, and languages; to lose this cultural diversity would truly be a shame. On the other hand, in a quickly developing world, it is important to have some sort of universal language to ease transactions and increase interactions between nations. English became this language because the British exported it during their imperial days and today, America is a global superpower, thus increasing the use of English on a global scale. Especially for developing countries, learning English eases the transition into the international business market. I see the value in both arguments, but I believe the best solution is a compromise between the two cases. Countries can do both; adopt English as a supplementary language and also preserve their native tongues. English can be taught as a second language but by no means has to replace the native language. We see that South Korea has been able to successfully make this transition. Continued emphasis on the importance of the nation's culture will make citizens more aware that globalization is a threat to their heritage, which leads them to consciously preserve their heritage. Luckily, we live in a time during which diversity is celebrated and culture is valued. Do you know of other examples where a balance has been achieved? and why do you think it works there?