A recent article in the Economist highlights an interesting topic. Is it better to protect one’s language, as France and Germany are doing, or to have more of a laissez-faire attitude, as is done with English?
English is more widespread than the other two languages, but that does not necessarily mean causation. After all, it is because of this that France and Germany are trying to protect their languages. Are they right in doing so?
At its most basic, a language exists to communicate. If I need to get a message across to someone else, language is the optimal form of doing so. We humans have proven to be quite adept at figuring this out, as has been seen with phenomena such as Nicaraguan Sign Language and Norfuk or Patois.*
Why do certain languages survive longer than others then? Namely, why is English spoken throughout the world, while Ancient Egyptian was forgotten for millennia? Of course, to say the British Empire was not a huge reason for this is simply contorting the facts, but it isn’t the only one. After all, at one point or another many other European powers had empires and colonies throughout the world.
The English language did not exist before the middle ages. Old English is not comprehensible to anyone who has not studied it. The fact is that this Old English mixed in with the local Gaelic, the Viking Norse, the Norman French, and later with the entire world thanks to trade and expansion. This continuous ability to adapt is what kept English alive, even though it is no longer recognizable to the original Anglo-Saxon from Friesland.
Following this reasoning, France and Germany might do well to adopt more of a laissez-faire attitude. English has adopted many French words, from pork and beef to Entourage and Laissez-faire, so that now it has four times the amount of vocabulary as French does. Rather than restrict themselves, the French and the Germans should open their language to change and not be afraid to lose control.
I have written a somewhat related analysis on the evolution of the English language here.
For a very interesting analysis on the story of the English language (and no economics), we recommend Melvyn Bragg’s The Adventure of English.
*Of course, when language usage is declining, it is nice to keep it alive, such as with Ticinese or Ainu. As a lover of history, I find it painful to see languages die out, but I have to admit there is little practical purpose in forcing a language to be maintained other than national pride. Reviving languages that have already gone extinct, like Cornish, seems even more of a stretch.
You can tell when a language is diminishing in importance by the vigor with which it is defended. Eventually the French might find themselves in the same situation as the Irish: all over Ireland, the signs are in Irish and English. Only a minute minority of Irish people actually understand the language.
Interesting points. In fact though, old French and old German is also not comprehensible to modern speakers because they have adopted over the centuries.
English had the same chance as any of the other major Europeans to go global until the USA came onto the scene. Actually the original 13 colonies and later American expansion was the spring board.
The last one hundred years has seen the US as a major soft culture (Hollywood) and business commerce exporter to the world. In addition the US has an influential military throughout the world. The US also represented the new world, inviting immigrants to a land of opportunity and dreams. Not to mention the internet was started in the US.
Some French old guards might try to protect French grammar but English too has a standard Oxford dictionary updated each year and let’s face it, there is a correct way to write any language.
Come to think of it, there are many languages that successfully borrow words from others and evolve in a very open way but don’t go global at all. Finnish and Swedish come to mind.
Most parents in Japan, for example, wish for their kids to study English over German not because German is too rigid, in fact they wouldn’t care. Its because they feel there will be more opportunities for them in the future armed with English vs German. Its a trend and even if English scholars got passionate like the French about protecting English, it would not change the trend of its expansion.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing in favor of language protectionism because languages must evolve. My point is this has little to do with why English is the current lingua franca.
Hi Ken,
You bring up some interesting points.
I’m certainly not saying German or French (or any other language) has not adapted or changed over time. Even if a language has absolutely no contact with anyone else it will change over the generations.
English, however, was already a global language well before the US became a world power. As I discussed in the article, the spread of the British Empire had a great amount to do with this. But the language can be separate from the people. In fact, before the Saxons arrived in England, the people there spoke a different language altogether, but they adopted English. When the Norman French conquered England, however, rather than adopting French, English changed to encompass French words and terms.
Nowadays we have dictionaries and rules, but my argument is it is much healthier for the language if it is allowed to adopt terminology from other languages naturally and evolve over time. These changes are reflected with the new words and terms featured in each new dictionary edition.
Also, this doesn’t guarantee global adoption. If a relatively unknown language like, say, Romantsch, decides to adopt foreign terms all of sudden, this alone probably won’t make it a global language. It will definitely make it easier for the Romantsch speakers to communicate naturally, however, and may help the language survive more easily.
Your example of parents in Japan is interesting. You’re right in that parents want their kids to learn English because it is more widespread, not less rigid. But I think its lack of rigidity is what helped it spread. English used to have gender specific nouns and various case endings (like genitive and accusative, etc.) like German does. It dropped them as the English speakers had to communicate with the Norse vikings and the French who conquered their lands, and found it easier to use words like “for” and “of” and “to” rather than different endings. Thanks to this simplification, added to its adoption of foreign words and terms, it was able to stay alive, and then spread much more easily.
In this case it was worth bending to the winds of foreign influence rather than standing rigid and risk breaking.
Thanks for the comment!