Stan Dubinsky brings to my attention an article about a book, The Last Lingua Franca: English Until the Return of Babel, by Nicholas Ostler. The article he refers to was dense and unappealing, but I was intrigued by the title of the book. The thesis of the book, apparently, is not what the title implies. It implied, to me, that language will be the world’s common language for practical purposes forever and ever, amen — or until some apocalyptic collapse. The actual proposition is somewhat different:
English is the world’s lingua franca-the most widely spoken language in human history. And yet, as historian and linguist Nicholas Ostler persuasively argues, English will not only be displaced as the world’s language in the not-distant future, it will be the last lingua franca, not replaced by another.
The reasons why the author believes there will be no such common language in the future are less interesting to me — angels on the head of a pin, frankly — than wondering what folks will be speaking and writing several centuries hence.
And while it may be comparatively lowbrow, I think Joss Whedon’s prediction in the “Firefly” series was as credible as any other: He had all humans in the universe speaking a combination of English and Mandarin.
Related Posts
My guess? We’ll be communicating with tweets, text shorthand, and emoticons. That’s a constituency Sarah Palin can rule over.
We will be speaking Google, Brad, Google. Don’t forget to put your quotes in the right spot.
Personally, I always thought the dolphins got it right with whistles and clicks.
If anyone has legitimized tweets, text shorthand, and emoticons, Mr. Ross, it has probably been the youthful victims of wireless consumerism who have become primary victims of binary logic.
Notable facilitators of (language decline) as well a global epidemic of bomb detonations have been the binary geniuoses like Bill gates and Steve Jobs, rather than the Sarah Palins.
Interestingly, a professional like Brad may see an enormous, career-limiting difference between Twitter and Blogger facility.
The French will riot in the streets over that for sure.
This makes an English teacher very sad.
And Doug is correct. If I grade another paper written with letters and symbols, I’ll implode.
Now you’ve got me afraid, Doug.
Very afraid.
I am 50 years old, and have an honors degree in English, and come from a family of editors, but I do not bewail the use of emoticons and abbreviations in nonformal communications. English’s beauty and strength derive from its fluidity–precisely why the lingua franca isn’t franca anymore–French is an intentionally rigid language (Academie, anyone?). The use of English pidgins worldwide facilitates international communication, and while I can wield a fountain pen on fine bond with the best of them, anything that enhances communication and clear, direct expression is a good thing.
Kathryn, I’d like to share your broadmindedness, but my experience of dealing with college kids recently makes me pessimistic. Their expressions may be clear and direct, but their thinking abilities haven’t gotten much exercise.
I’m pretty much with you, Kathryn, but exactly what does “:)” convey? This is funny? I’m happy? I want you to be happy? Smile? Or is it satiric? All too often shortened forms are neither clear nor concise. That doesn’t mean that I don’t use them 2:)
@ Karen–People use emoticons because of the huge danger of misreading tone in electronic communications. Professor Fenner (Mr. Kathryn), an early adopter of the Internets, even before the Wide, Wide World of Web, always cautions that one cannot read tone form an email–hence the emoticon. A smiley face usually means “no offense”–whatever *that* really means…I guess it means “I do not wish to be perceived as belligerent” or in dogspeak, “I’m just a little dog. Don’t attack me.”
Now the gifted writers among us, and those who take a lot more time with their communications than the usual emailer does, can convey tone quite well without a smile or a wink, but again–anything that encourages people to use their words is a good thing in my book.
@ Steve–haven’t folks throughout the ages been decrying the shortcomings of the younger generation?
@Kathryn, but all too often I conclude that the “:)” means “I’m just playfully chewing on you;” that is, the person knows that it’s offensive but intends to keep anyone from responding in kind by putting a smiley face on the end of it. and they may be doberman sized.
Is there an emoticon that says, “I’m a big ol’ hairy mean dog, so get outta my face or I’ll rip your throat out”?
I wanna get me one of THOSE…
But seriously, folks…
I learned long ago that electronic communication is EXTREMELY limited and prone to emotional misreading. I’ve been doing it in one form or another since the early 80s, and I have had a number of co-workers over the years come to me in tears because of a message I sent them. All women, near as I can recall. I did have a male colleague come to me looking for a fight once, but it wasn’t because of something I had written. I had logged onto someone else’s terminal (back in mainframe days) and had not logged off, which gave a prankster (another male, of course) the opportunity to send the other guy a really over-the-top, insulting message over my login. Worse, he sent it to the wrong guy, someone with the same last name. The intended recipient would have laughed it off.
A bit of a sticky wicket, until I sorted it out and got the culprit to confess. And even then, the guy who was itching for a fight was STILL mad at me. In fact, he still seemed ticked the last time I saw him…
But I prefer that situation to the crying women; they do make a guy feel like such a louse…
“Is there an emoticon that says, “I’m a big ol’ hairy mean dog, so get outta my face or I’ll rip your throat out”?”
>:{