mezbup Wrote:I think it would be better if everyone could communicate with everyone in a proper form. Rather than just communicating with people half-assedly.

Yes let us be Proper good sir. Or NOT cuz 's a drag dogg.

Kanjiiz Wrote:Why English is dead?

Making a simple language to increase and ease communication between people with different languages backgrounds is a good idea, but such a language should only be used for that purpose.

All languages has already become simpler, right? And alongside that, people's ability to express their ideas and communicate efficiently has decreased, a quick look at an old text shows that the writer could express his thoughts more specifically using more complex structures and vocabulary, which prevents wrong interpretation from the reader and makes the text better to read. Also expressing a specific thought in modern simpler versions of any language will most likely use more words than the complex one.

In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Older books were often written by people with a big vocabulary for people with a big vocabulary and so it was hard for average citizens to understand them, at least that is the impression I have. The reason for simplifying the language in many modern books is that it makes them more available and easy to get into.

Saying that the communication between people has decreased I would say is just wrong - if anything, the overall accuracy in (written) communication has decreased. Of course that's a downside but the upside is, again, that the language generally is more available. Besides, if you fancy more expressive/specific words there are plenty of modern literary works, blogs, etc. out there for your perusal.

I think it's ridiculous to argue and try to argue what is the 'right' direction to take English itself because at this point, there's no institution or anything that can dictate what is the 'correct' way to use English, just a lot of self-righteous fools who refuse to accept that English is living a life of its own now and is changing every day by use all over the world.

As for what English should be learned, like someone else mentioned earlier, it only makes sense to decide what is the average person of the target group you want to learn to speak to and work towards fluent communication with that person (in Japan's case, I'm guessing American businessman or something). The simplest and overall best way toward that communication seems to me to be learning from and imitating that person directly as much as possible. It's just language, people! No need to turn it into this cumbersome complex system.

Well. Unless you care more about having something you can grade on your stupid 100-point tests than about your students actually learning.

I suppose I actually don't have to worry and use words like 'centrifugal' and 'centripetal', the linguists have it covered with 'endo' and 'exo' normative:

"This ties in with the central political question mentioned before, the
choice of a target variety in language education. An exonormative orienta-
tion, favoring native-speaker and usually British English, is opposed to an
endonormative attitude which would accept educated local forms of using
English as the goal for students to strive for. Exonormativity is supported
by history and tradition, and by the assumption that this is the “best,” or
perhaps even the only “correct,” form of the language, which, thus, natu-
rally must be offered to (and expected from) students. And of course it is
also promoted by the availability of books, teaching materials, and so on,
pushed by international publishing houses. But it comes with a price, and a
high one at that, a permanent lie, as it were. The implied goal of “passing for
a native” is bound to produce permanent frustration, while it gives a huge
advantage to British speakers. An undeserved one, though – the only rea-
sonably sounding cause for such a choice has been intelligibility, but, as was
stated before, it has been shown that ESL varieties, typically marked by a
syllable-timed rhythm and more careful articulation, are actually more
intelligible to speakers of other Englishes than natives.

Endonormative teaching targets are much more realistic to achieve, and
also more sensitive to local cultural needs. And they have the additional
advantage of developing and supporting local resources."

via: http://tinyurl.com/4jzme3w

Or: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0521716586

(Disclosure: I'm Canadian, but not technically a native speaker in that I learned English as a child, but my parents didn't speak English at home).

On accent: Most learners of English strive for an American accent because that's the global standard. British English as global language went out with the Suez Crisis, if not earlier.

Some de-facto standardization of English is simply a necessity to make yourself understood. So for example many Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis etc have real trouble understanding Brits who don't speak BBC English, which for good reasons is called "received pronunciation." But everybody understands standard American. In fact, studies have found that non-native speakers understand standard American English best, too.

(sorry, nest0r, no literature reference here, but if anyone disputes the point, I'll dig it out)

That aside, what you speak with your friends and family is up to you. Haitian cab drivers in Montreal speak proper French to the passenger (actually much closer to standard Parisian French than the locals ever could), but Creole with their colleagues.

On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Odd. to say something has given up the ghost is fairly standard to hear in Britain too, maybe a bit old fashioned but you will still occasionally hear it.

Gingerninja Wrote:

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Odd. to say something has given up the ghost is fairly standard to hear in Britain too, maybe a bit old fashioned but you will still occasionally hear it.

Just as in Germany (den Geist aufgeben)

Gingerninja Wrote:

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Odd. to say something has given up the ghost is fairly standard to hear in Britain too, maybe a bit old fashioned but you will still occasionally hear it.

This is a British English phrase, from the King James bible. I hear this said a lot, and if someone didn't understand it in the UK I'm quite surprised. Maybe it's more common in modern USA than UK.

edit: My bad, it's also in an earlier version of the bible.
And since those bible's are all translations, there's a good chance this phrase exists in many languages.

Irixmark Wrote:(Disclosure: I'm Canadian, but not technically a native speaker in that I learned English as a child, but my parents didn't speak English at home).

On accent: Most learners of English strive for an American accent because that's the global standard. British English as global language went out with the Suez Crisis, if not earlier.

Some de-facto standardization of English is simply a necessity to make yourself understood. So for example many Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis etc have real trouble understanding Brits who don't speak BBC English, which for good reasons is called "received pronunciation." But everybody understands standard American. In fact, studies have found that non-native speakers understand standard American English best, too.

(sorry, nest0r, no literature reference here, but if anyone disputes the point, I'll dig it out)

That aside, what you speak with your friends and family is up to you. Haitian cab drivers in Montreal speak proper French to the passenger (actually much closer to standard Parisian French than the locals ever could), but Creole with their colleagues.

On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

If you're responding to my quote, I was posting it for the endonormative/exonormative terminology, not British vs. American English as the global standard. I think you shouldn't make sweeping statements if you're challenging a textbook, but I agree and so does the book that American English is very popular. Going through that book, it seems to go over this development in detail, as well as RP and blah blah. However, it's arguable which is the 'dominant' English in that sense, I don't think any linguists have come to a consensus, but I'd be happy to be shown wrong with studies on the matter. Mostly they just say 'British or American' or 'British and American' English. I'm not sure why the book said 'usually British English' in that particular section. I imagine they were referring specifically to the 'prescriptive materials' type dynamic, rather than 'what people want to learn', although I think it remains arguable either way. The shadow of the Empire is long, I think. Esp. Commonwealth and related countries, as it were. Just depends...

As for American English being the most easily understood, you'll definitely have to post studies about that, because you're bluntly disagreeing with the above text and everything I've ever read on the topic (which admittedly isn't much, but enough to know that the consensus is that American and British English are more difficult and the new Englishes are easier. That's also often the premise for articles that talk about natives being left out of the conversational loop even when reps from sundry countries are speaking English to one another. Chapter 7 (especially 7.2) of the linked text describes this in detail, including the ways the generalization of new Englishes being 'simpler' might've arose. Not trying to uphold this text as special as I just noticed that quote, but I certainly don't think people should listen to quick, bold statements in a web forum over a modern university book on linguistics, hehe, so I want to make my stance in that regard. Also, the whole British and American thing is precisely what I think we need to get away from. Anyway.

Since I'm randomly promoting this book even though there's tonnes of literature on Englishes:

"Complex expressions, that is, local phrases and idioms, make up an important part of the vocabulary, and one, it seems, which is liberally coined or transferred by “calquing,” word-by-word translations from one language to another. So, local phraseology is characteristic of many young World Englishes. An important type in this domain are idioms, i.e. word groups which only together have a specific meaning, so knowing their parts, the words individually, does not help at all."

nest0r Wrote:I suppose I actually don't have to worry and use words like 'centrifugal' and 'centripetal', the linguists have it covered with 'endo' and 'exo' normative:

"This ties in with the central political question mentioned before, the
choice of a target variety in language education. An exonormative orienta-
tion, favoring native-speaker and usually British English, is opposed to an
endonormative attitude which would accept educated local forms of using
English as the goal for students to strive for. Exonormativity is supported
by history and tradition, and by the assumption that this is the “best,” or
perhaps even the only “correct,” form of the language, which, thus, natu-
rally must be offered to (and expected from) students. And of course it is
also promoted by the availability of books, teaching materials, and so on,
pushed by international publishing houses. But it comes with a price, and a
high one at that, a permanent lie, as it were. The implied goal of “passing for
a native” is bound to produce permanent frustration, while it gives a huge
advantage to British speakers. An undeserved one, though – the only rea-
sonably sounding cause for such a choice has been intelligibility, but, as was
stated before, it has been shown that ESL varieties, typically marked by a
syllable-timed rhythm and more careful articulation, are actually more
intelligible to speakers of other Englishes than natives.

Endonormative teaching targets are much more realistic to achieve, and
also more sensitive to local cultural needs. And they have the additional
advantage of developing and supporting local resources."

I'm not entirely sure the author would agree that this applies to Japan... In the two pages he devotes to Japan he mostly just says that the Japanese suck at English and it's not really integrated in their culture so there's not what he'd call "Japanese English", only - this is not a direct quote, only what I believe he would call it from the few pages I read - "(sparse) English usage in Japan".

The kind of English, when it is spoken at all, that the average Japanese speaks is hard to understand from what I've heard of Japanese speaking English in general (in series, etc.) and I'm a Swede so that's non-native->non-native. From what little I've seen of learning materials for English the education seems to promote a highly unnatural and convoluted way of speaking (get rid of the katakanizing already! it's not effective as a phonemic system for English sounds) that has little to do with simplifying the language. If there's an English accent that would be easier than British/American English and at the same time work well for communicating with most speakers of the world that's fine. I just really don't think that what's being taught in Japanese schools today is very good and it seems like it would be hard to justify choosing, for example, "Singaporean English" over all other English accents instead of going with one of the most stereotypical accents.

As for "non-native speakers" (isn't there a better term? I've been learning English ever since I was a kid and I'm not from GB/USA, since English is used all over here it seems odd to call myself a non-native) I think it sounds plausible that, overall, English speakers understand standard American English the best save for their own local accent(s) simply because American media is seeping into the majority of the world. That is, when it's recorded and the non-native doesn't need to make itself understood. Most of the studies I've seen referred to stating that non-natives understand other non-natives better than native English speakers talk about face-to-face interaction. American/British English speakers tend to be impatient and not make as much of an effort at understanding other accents because they can't get away from the idea that their own accent is 'correct' English. That's the main explanation I've heard, anyway. Of course, it still would be nice to have some source on that, Irixmark.

Surreal Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:I suppose I actually don't have to worry and use words like 'centrifugal' and 'centripetal', the linguists have it covered with 'endo' and 'exo' normative:

"This ties in with the central political question mentioned before, the
choice of a target variety in language education. An exonormative orienta-
tion, favoring native-speaker and usually British English, is opposed to an
endonormative attitude which would accept educated local forms of using
English as the goal for students to strive for. Exonormativity is supported
by history and tradition, and by the assumption that this is the “best,” or
perhaps even the only “correct,” form of the language, which, thus, natu-
rally must be offered to (and expected from) students. And of course it is
also promoted by the availability of books, teaching materials, and so on,
pushed by international publishing houses. But it comes with a price, and a
high one at that, a permanent lie, as it were. The implied goal of “passing for
a native” is bound to produce permanent frustration, while it gives a huge
advantage to British speakers. An undeserved one, though – the only rea-
sonably sounding cause for such a choice has been intelligibility, but, as was
stated before, it has been shown that ESL varieties, typically marked by a
syllable-timed rhythm and more careful articulation, are actually more
intelligible to speakers of other Englishes than natives.

Endonormative teaching targets are much more realistic to achieve, and
also more sensitive to local cultural needs. And they have the additional
advantage of developing and supporting local resources."

I'm not entirely sure the author would agree that this applies to Japan... In the two pages he devotes to Japan he mostly just says that the Japanese suck at English and it's not really integrated in their culture so there's not what he'd call "Japanese English", only - this is not a direct quote, only what I believe he would call it from the few pages I read - "(sparse) English usage in Japan".

The kind of English, when it is spoken at all, that the average Japanese speaks is hard to understand from what I've heard of Japanese speaking English in general (in series, etc.) and I'm a Swede so that's non-native->non-native. From what little I've seen of learning materials for English the education seems to promote a highly unnatural and convoluted way of speaking (get rid of the katakanizing already! it's not effective as a phonemic system for English sounds) that has little to do with simplifying the language. If there's an English accent that would be easier than British/American English and at the same time work well for communicating with most speakers of the world that's fine. I just really don't think that what's being taught in Japanese schools today is very good and it seems like it would be hard to justify choosing, for example, "Singaporean English" over all other English accents instead of going with one of the most stereotypical accents.

As for "non-native speakers" (isn't there a better term? I've been learning English ever since I was a kid and I'm not from GB/USA, since English is used all over here it seems odd to call myself a non-native) I think it sounds plausible that, overall, English speakers understand standard American English the best save for their own local accent(s) simply because American media is seeping into the majority of the world. That is, when it's recorded and the non-native doesn't need to make itself understood. Most of the studies I've seen referred to stating that non-natives understand other non-natives better than native English speakers talk about face-to-face interaction. American/British English speakers tend to be impatient and not make as much of an effort at understanding other accents because they can't get away from the idea that their own accent is 'correct' English. That's the main explanation I've heard, anyway. Of course, it still would be nice to have some source on that, Irixmark.

Wait, are you saying that American is more easily understood than British, or American is best understood of all Englishes, period? I haven't seen any discussions of the former, and of the latter it's clear it's untrue. Edit: I see you made exception for 'local'.

I think 'Speakers of Other Languages' is a common term, no? i.e. TESOL. Re: non-native. Or bilingual/trilingual. But then wouldn't that (growing up multilingual) be considered 'native'? And often of a different variety of English. And of course we can't forget L1, L2, etc.

As for the relevance of the original quote to Japan.

I think it ties nicely into the OP article which seems more about generating/promoting a Japanese English. We're talking about the same dynamic. The bit about Japan you're referring to also argues:

"And, as Stanlaw also concedes, most Japanese people are unable to communicate fluently in English even after several years of schooling, perhaps because the emphasis
of teaching is on learning grammar rules and vocabulary rather than on speaking."

Related to this, the paragraph just before the one I first quoted:

"In general, it is probably fair to say that repetitive and passive language skills tend to be given priority over productive language usage, and in many cases writing receives more attention than speaking. In many countries language teaching is characterized by a tradition of rote learning, reading out loud and chorus repetition (think of Li Yang’s “Crazy English” teaching method in China, mentioned in the previous chapter!). Much energy tends to go into vocabulary learning, the teaching of “grammar rules,” and also into the development of reading and translation skills. In comparison, less emphasis is given to the development of oral fluency and the goal of achieving “communicative competence,” i.e. to practicing speaking and appropriate language use in situations. But knowing or learning a language is mainly about the ability to communicate, so it is clear that these oral skills need to be given more weight these days. The need for such a redirection is evident. It has been observed, for example, that government schools in India equip students with a baseline knowledge in vocabulary and grammar but that students who can afford to do so supplement this by frequenting commercial institutes which offer spoken English courses. So it doesn’t come as a surprise that offers specifically for “Spoken English,” as in Figure 30, are flourishing."

The more I quote this text the less I like some of the assumptions. A bit too fuzzy. In particular, with each quote I can predict little rhetorical flourishes that could be seized on and debated. But provides a nice overview which is why I linked to it in a new post rather than just mentioned endo/exonormative in a minor edit. Perhaps even more I wanted to remind that this is an established topic with plenty to read besides online news articles and comments. ^_-

nest0r Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:snip.

snip-snip

Wait, are you saying that American is more easily understood than British, or American is best understood of all Englishes, period? I haven't seen any discussions of the former, and of the latter it's clear it's untrue. Edit: I see you made exception for 'local'.

I think 'Speakers of Others Languages' is a common term, no? i.e. TESOL. Re: non-native. Or bilingual/trilingual. But then wouldn't that (growing up multilingual) be considered 'native'? And often of a different variety of English. And of course we can't forget L1, L2, etc.

As for the relevance of the original quote to Japan.

I think it ties nicely into the OP article which seems more about generating/promoting a Japanese English. We're talking about the same dynamic. The bit about Japan you're referring to also argues:

"And, as Stanlaw also concedes, most Japanese people are unable to communicate fluently in English even after several years of schooling, perhaps because the emphasis
of teaching is on learning grammar rules and vocabulary rather than on speaking."

Related to this, the paragraph just before the one I first quoted:

"CONVERSATION IS AWESOME AND WILL FIX EVERYTHING"

The more I quote this text the less I like some of the assumptions. A bit too fuzzy. In particular, with each quote I can predict little rhetorical flourishes that could be seized on and debated. But provides a nice overview which is why I linked to it in a new post rather than just mentioned endo/exonormative in a minor edit. Perhaps even more I wanted to remind that this is an established topic with plenty to read besides online news articles and comments. ^_-

Oh, sure, I don't think the text is very good either and I mostly wanted to use it at as a stepping stone for the discussion. I didn't word it very well in my earlier post, my point wasn't that what you quoted was irrelevant to the topic, I only wanted to say that "Japanese English" - meaning the average, learnt-in-school JE - in the form it is today is in (as it seems to me) many ways lacking because of its limited use in communicating with English-speakers from other countries compared to for example Indian or Singaporean English. Thereby continuing the line of thought you introduced.

The part you quoted now goes back to the criticism of the over-emphasis on conversational English that some people seem to think is a worrisome trend... And I think it's worrisome when researchers can't stop to think about how swinging from one extreme to another usually brings a whole new host of issues to be dealt with, supposing the original ones were even solved.

By the way, yes, what I meant is that if you look at the 'mean level of understanding' for Earth's English-speaking population from all accents, it's likely that American English would be at the top. I didn't mean to imply any justification for anything by saying that and of course, it doesn't mean that there aren't individuals who speak English but have a very hard time understanding standard American English.

Edit: okay that reply was frighteningly quick

I can't say I disagree. ;p

Will dig out some sources later when the Wiley online library server doesn't shut me out any more. Besides the presence of American media products and movies, I think students in Asia studying for the TOEFL (which is in American English) rather than any alternative might reinforce this trend. Suffice to say that it's a rather politicized topic...

But in the meantime and more related the topic of the thread: Does anyone have access to this article? The abstract says "A qualitative case study of Japanese secondary school students suggests that, although they perceive English as an international language in a sense that it is being used internationally, they do not believe it belongs internationally." Apparently Japanese kids don't like hearing English with a Japanese accent, so that would make Torikai's prediction a little unlikely. I'm not too hot on case studies rather than well-designed surveys, though.

There is also a whole slew of studies of the intelligibility of various non-native accents to non-native speakers, but no consensus.

Surreal Wrote:Older books were often written by people with a big vocabulary for people with a big vocabulary and so it was hard for average citizens to understand them, at least that is the impression I have. The reason for simplifying the language in many modern books is that it makes them more available and easy to get into.

I doubt this, it is only your impression.

Kanjiiz Wrote:In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Surreal Wrote:Saying that the communication between people has decreased I would say is just wrong - if anything, the overall accuracy in (written) communication has decreased. Of course that's a downside but the upside is, again, that the language generally is more available. Besides, if you fancy more expressive/specific words there are plenty of modern literary works, blogs, etc. out there for your perusal.

What point does this prove?
What do you mean by 'more available'? Before CHILDREN mastered most of their language even though their language was more complex than ours.

Surreal Wrote:Well. Unless you care more about having something you can grade on your stupid 100-point tests than about your students actually learning.

Again no relation to what I was saying.

I agree with you about learning what you need from a FOREIGN language.

I'll state my opinion clearly, maybe it's not a bad idea to simplify a language to make communicating with people with foreign languages easier and wider, but ones native language should be preserved and mastered, because simple forms of languages decreases the ability to express ones thoughts precisely.

Surreal Wrote:Edit: okay that reply was frighteningly quick

hehe. Ever seen Megamind? (I don't normally reference such films but I liked that one and it seems apt.)

Kanjiiz Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:Older books were often written by people with a big vocabulary for people with a big vocabulary and so it was hard for average citizens to understand them, at least that is the impression I have. The reason for simplifying the language in many modern books is that it makes them more available and easy to get into.

I doubt this, it is only your impression.

Kanjiiz Wrote:In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Surreal Wrote:Saying that the communication between people has decreased I would say is just wrong - if anything, the overall accuracy in (written) communication has decreased. Of course that's a downside but the upside is, again, that the language generally is more available. Besides, if you fancy more expressive/specific words there are plenty of modern literary works, blogs, etc. out there for your perusal.

What point does this prove?
What do you mean by 'more available'? Before CHILDREN mastered most of their language even though their language was more complex than ours.

Surreal Wrote:Well. Unless you care more about having something you can grade on your stupid 100-point tests than about your students actually learning.

Again no relation to what I was saying.

I agree with you about learning what you need from a FOREIGN language.

I'll state my opinion clearly, maybe it's not a bad idea to simplify a language to make communicating with people with foreign languages easier and wider, but ones native language should be preserved and mastered, because simple forms of languages decreases the ability to express ones thoughts precisely.

First, that last bit wasn't directed at you; it was a sarcastic remark on how many teachers all over the world tend to care most about how to grade their students instead of real pedagogy (the last two paragraphs were of a more general nature, but I can see how that post can easily be misunderstood).

I tried doing some googling and I read Wikipedia's page on literacy, but I didn't find much info on the average person's vocabulary or how common it was for British and American readers to read books that contained 'complex' vocabulary in the late 19th century/early 20th century. Of course there was more bible-reading but I didn't find any details on to what degree the readers understood the texts and how 'complex' the language was to the people of that time so yeah. If you find anything, please link it.

Even if we assume that the common woman/man had a bigger vocabulary some decades ago than today, we need to remember that there are so many other things we need to learn in modern society today - about science, history, national as well as international happenings and so on - that perhaps we shouldn't expect to have the same mental resources to pour into language mastery. Of course, a lot of adults just slouch around on their sofas watching simple-minded TV when they could be reading literary masterworks so a lot of us certainly could do MORE. I'm just saying that it's possible that (though I have no idea how one would quantify it) the mental effort put into learning things throughout an average human's life today might be greater than it used to be.

Actually, reading about "new literacies" at Wikipedia made me think that the way English is used today is in many ways more complex than it used to be. As I'm typing right now on this keyboard I have to take into account the great cultural differences between us and what concepts you are used to talking about. Many times we also need to take into account what level of English the person we are talking to is at when we communicate on forums, judging only by a few posts from the person her/himself. When we read things on the net they are filled with abbreviations and different input methods, italics at odd places that make us wonder what it's about... And most of us have to learn a lot of lingo that is entirely new today, like microwave oven, or highly area-specific terms like 'proximodistal trajectory'. Of course, one of the skills of reading, choosing WHAT to read, is need more than ever as we live in societies packed with text everywhere. What about the level of abstraction, should we count discussions about things that aren't directly present as more complex since it could be argued it demands more imagination?

At the same time, I understand what you mean and regardless of whether there has really been a decrease in the average L1 English speaker's vocabulary or not I agree that more 'precise' words can be nice and give color to the language once you're used to them. I just like to appreciate all the different levels of language.

EditNestor Nope, haven't seen it. I'm sure it's a great analogy though! :p

Surreal Wrote:Actually, reading about "new literacies" at Wikipedia made me think that the way English is used today is in many ways more complex than it used to be. As I'm typing right now on this keyboard I have to take into account the great cultural differences between us and what concepts you are used to talking about. Many times we also need to take into account what level of English the person we are talking to is at when we communicate on forums, judging only by a few posts from the person her/himself. When we read things on the net they are filled with abbreviations and different input methods, italics at odd places that make us wonder what it's about... And most of us have to learn a lot of lingo that is entirely new today, like microwave oven, or highly area-specific terms like 'proximodistal trajectory'.

A very good point, I like it!

Surreal Wrote:At the same time, I understand what you mean and regardless of whether there has really been a decrease in the average L1 English speaker's vocabulary or not I agree that more 'precise' words can be nice and give color to the language once you're used to them. I just like to appreciate all the different levels of language.

Exactly!

Oh my, reading that made me sick. This is very sad. Why do they need to make this so complicated? If you wanna learn a language, you gotta have native exposure. It's as simple as that.

Or, better yet, how about we just excel at our own native languages, and not force other people to learn a 2nd language? There is no reason to have compulsory english classes like many nations do. These people should forget trying to make everyone learn English, and should instead focus on making sure their own language does not die out due to the excessive globalism in our world today(something Japan and many other countries have so far failed at doing).

Quote:These people should forget trying to make everyone learn English, and should instead focus on making sure their own language does not die out due to the excessive globalism in our world today(something Japan and many other countries have so far failed at doing).

I don't know.

世界で一番人気の新聞は日本にあります。朝日新聞だと思います。
(the most popular newspaper in the world is in Japan. I think it is the Asahi Shimbun)

毎日、一億人が日本語を話します。人気な言葉です。
(Every day, 100 million people speak Japanese. It is a popular language.)