| বিষয়ের পেজ: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Artificially Re-Created English as international lingua franca থ্রেড পোস্টার: Thomas Johansson
|
|---|
heikeb 
ইংরেজি থেকে জার্মান
+ ...
| streamlining - how? | Feb 15, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
And perhaps streamlining also can be done at various other levels, such as e.g. developing semantically clearer alternatives to idioms and semantically streamlining the use of prepositions (to mention two problem areas indicated by another poster here).
How would you practically go about clarifying idioms and streamlining prepositions? This part of all languages has grown and changed into its respective current state over centuries and is deeply rooted in the very particular culture and world views of its speakers.
How would you "semantically streamline" prepositions? Even if each English preposition had its counterpart in another language, the usages of these prepositions overlap only partially. The very specific prepositions used in many instances are part of idiomatic expressions and as such cannot really be changed or removed - at some point you'd find yourself short of streamlined and "streamlinable" words.
Furthermore, the more you reduce the complexity of language to a "blander" version, the more details, which make our communication really efficient, would get lost. In order to clarify idiomatic meanings, of which many express rather complex ideas in very few words - sometimes even in a single word -, you'd have to circumscribe their actual meaning, using many more words than the original expression without adding anything to it. And try that without using any other idiomatic expression or preposition in need of streamlining! Also, since specific expressions have gained rather specific connotations, by changing the expressions into something different, these very specific connotations would most likely be lost. Precise communication will be much harder, the language would be much poorer. Imaging literature without idioms... 
And even if it were possible to clarify and streamline all those characteristics of English that I would call (together with the grammar) the essence of the English language, even native English speakers would have to learn it like a foreign language. What would be their motivation to do that?
You probably be better off inventing a new language altogether, and that has been done before.
| | | | Heinrich Pesch
ফিনল্যান্ড
Local time: 20:38
2003 থেকে সদস্য
ফিনিস থেকে জার্মান
+ ...
| Where's the fun? | Feb 15, 2009 |
I don't believe anybody would settle for using EVE. People like challenges, and to know only EVE does not seem very satisfying.
There is already Math, much communication could be reduced to mathematics. Then there is Latin, a language that had been the lingua franca of Europe up to 1700.
I would suggest another approach: simplified alphabetical Chinese. It is unlikely, that large numbers of people around the world would like to spend years on learning the Chinese pictorial sc... See more I don't believe anybody would settle for using EVE. People like challenges, and to know only EVE does not seem very satisfying.
There is already Math, much communication could be reduced to mathematics. Then there is Latin, a language that had been the lingua franca of Europe up to 1700.
I would suggest another approach: simplified alphabetical Chinese. It is unlikely, that large numbers of people around the world would like to spend years on learning the Chinese pictorial script. Instead there could be a simple version based on the Latin character set.
The problem in communication are mostly phonetical. Even EVE would be spoken differently in each and every place.
Liked you the film? a German would say.
Regards
Heinrich ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kevin Lossner
পর্তুগাল
Local time: 18:38
জার্মান থেকে ইংরেজি
+ ...
| Controlled language | Feb 15, 2009 |
I think any long-term efforts of large scope to achieve a fairly static, simplified version of English would be doomed. I've been following discussions of "controlled language" in the context of technical documentation and machine translation for years, but every result I have seen of a real document written by a real person trained in such principles shows that people have a hard time restraining themselves in their expression. That's not a bad thing, just inconvenient in that case. The interpr... See more I think any long-term efforts of large scope to achieve a fairly static, simplified version of English would be doomed. I've been following discussions of "controlled language" in the context of technical documentation and machine translation for years, but every result I have seen of a real document written by a real person trained in such principles shows that people have a hard time restraining themselves in their expression. That's not a bad thing, just inconvenient in that case. The interpretation of evolving language is one of those reasons that we will all continue to have work for as long as we want it, and are unlikely to be able to offload quality translation onto a computer. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | How about food pills? | Feb 15, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
This led me to think: What if there existed an EASIER VERSION of English available for people to learn?
What if we replaced food and cooking with nutrient pills and liquids? It would protect us from having to decide, select, and cook our food, and by producing food pills and nutrients more efficiently in factories, the hassle of having a kitchen, dishes, a dining room table, etc. would be avoided. It would be even better for the environment: just think of how much washing liquid we use every day!
An artificial language sounds like pills and canned dietary supplements to me. Thank God your project is impossible as it happened with Esperanto:
- People enjoy cooking food because food is far more than just the practical concept of nourishment;
- People enjoy colourful and stylish clothes because clothing is far more than just the practical concept of being protected from the cold and the sun and hiding our imperfections;
- People enjoy languages because they mean much more than just the practical concept of communicating effectively.
And be honest Thomas, you do like to eat at a nice restaurant every now and then, and be able to choose your clothes, huh?
| | |
|
|
|
| Kill one of the meanings | Feb 15, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
Example:
INSTEAD OF: "Did you like the movie?" PERHAPS: "You liked the movie?"
I know this was just an example, but also as an example, let me say that to be able to use the second sentence you would have to:
A) Kill the meaning of "You liked the movie?", which to me means "So as inconceivable as I think this is, you nevertheless did like the movie?"
B) Kill the sentence "Did you like the movie?" (which is simply enquiring about the enjoyment of the movie, with no other considerations) and port its meaning to "You liked the movie?".
So it takes a lot of killing and genetic engineering to make EVE. Do you believe in human intervention to favour one species in front of others in nature? Do you look for transgenic produce in the supermarket? I don't see the need to fiddle around with the DNA of languages either.
| | | | | EVE rich and fun | Feb 15, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
An artificial language sounds like pills and canned dietary supplements to me.
It would not be an artificial language. It would be the English you know fitted with a phonemic system of writing and certain streamlining in morphology, syntax, etc.
I cannot see it would be watered down or made uninteresting in the way your comparison suggests. On the contrary, it would be fun to learn for learners, since they would not encounter the usual obstacles, such as loads of grammatical exceptions and a phonetically unpredictable writing system.
People would feel more motivated continuing the learning process - instead of what happens today, when many learners quit after a few initial attempts, running their heads into walls of various difficulties.
EVE would not be pills and canned food, but the contrary in terms of its ability to keep the student's interest alive.
Personally, I have studied several languages over the years, and in my own experience I have found those languages more stimulating to study which have enabled me to make quick progress.
Secondly, we are talking about real human lives here. Currently, around the world, lots of young people are wrecking useful time and their heads with trying to learn English. Most of them lose interest quickly, most will never get beyond basic knowledge. Is it worth spending 300 hours per year of a child's life for 6 to 9 years, if the only result will be that they barely know how to say "My name is ..." and perhaps also being filled with resentment to English, school and any suggestion of later studying or learning a foreign language? Why not make that process fun and stimulating instead - by simplifying for instance the writing and the grammar?
[Edited at 2009-02-15 23:04 GMT]
| | | | | that's just a difference of intonation and context | Feb 15, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
I know this was just an example, but also as an example, let me say that to be able to use the second sentence you would have to:
A) Kill the meaning of "You liked the movie?", which to me means "So as inconceivable as I think this is, you nevertheless did like the movie?"
B) Kill the sentence "Did you like the movie?" (which is simply enquiring about the enjoyment of the movie, with no other considerations) and port its meaning to "You liked the movie?".
I don't think there is this inherent difference in meaning between "You liked the movie?" and "Did you like the movie?" at the formal level. To me, the differences in meaning you suggest appear more have to do with differences in intonation and context.
For instance, I could say "You liked the movie?" in your sense A above, but then it would most likely be with certain stress, emphasis on "liked", and perhaps also with certain facial modifications indicating my surprise, disapproval, etc.
I could say the very same sentence in your sense B as well, but then with a very different intonation pattern.
| | | | | idioms and prepositions | Feb 15, 2009 |
Heike Behl, Ph.D. wrote:
How would you practically go about clarifying idioms and streamlining prepositions?
...
How would you "semantically streamline" prepositions?
I think you are pointing to areas of problems that cannot be done away with entirely. Still, it may be possible to make these areas easier to learn in some ways. I would suggest a case-by-case approach. Some general principles:
Idioms:
- Most are not necessary for new learners to learn. Most can be learned at a later stage. For instance "red herring".
- Others, e.g. "to give up", may carry more important meanings (in terms of frequency of use and need). To some extent, these may perhaps be replaced by new expressions, though I have no more concrete suggestion about this right now.
In any event, idioms are an unreducible part of any language, so this difficulty will affect any language in terms of its learnability to learners. I am just suggesting that we simplify in so far as is possible, not more.
Prepositions:
- It may to some extent be possible to identify core meanings/roles of prepositions and some general principles for how these meanings/roles then can be extended to further meanings/new roles. On that basis, it may perhaps be possible to replace some current uses of prepositions with "more correct" uses (i.e. in terms of these "core meanings" and their extension principles).
What is essential is not that the way the prepositions are used match the ways prepositions are used in the learner's own native language. What is important is that there are some identifiable principles at work and a systematic application of them. If this can be achieved, the use of prepositions will also be made easier to learn.
[Edited at 2009-02-15 23:19 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
heikeb
ইংরেজি থেকে জার্মান
+ ...
| Not artificial?? | Feb 16, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
An artificial language sounds like pills and canned dietary supplements to me.
It would not be an artificial language. It would be the English you know fitted with a phonemic system of writing and certain streamlining in morphology, syntax, etc.
I cannot see it would be watered down or made uninteresting in the way your comparison suggests. On the contrary, it would be fun to learn for learners, since they would not encounter the usual obstacles, such as loads of grammatical exceptions and a phonetically unpredictable writing system.
People would feel more motivated continuing the learning process - instead of what happens today, when many learners quit after a few initial attempts, running their heads into walls of various difficulties.
EVE would not be pills and canned food, but the contrary in terms of its ability to keep the student's interest alive.
Personally, I have studied several languages over the years, and in my own experience I have found those languages more stimulating to study which have enabled me to make quick progress.
Secondly, we are talking about real human lives here. Currently, around the world, lots of young people are wrecking useful time and their heads with trying to learn English. Most of them lose interest quickly, most will never get beyond basic knowledge. Is it worth spending 300 hours per year of a child's life for 6 to 9 years, if the only result will be that they barely know how to say "My name is ..." and perhaps also being filled with resentment to English, school and any suggestion of later studying or learning a foreign language? Why not make that process fun and stimulating instead - by simplifying for instance the writing and the grammar? [Edited at 2009-02-15 23:04 GMT]
Of course it would be artificial. It would not be constructed from scratch, but it would still be constructed and not a naturally developed form. You'd have to prescribe current speakers/writers of English what version of English they would have to use and to forget about everything they ever learned.
People don't like it when you tell them that what they have used all their life is no good anymore and they need to change.
How would you feel if your government told you that, starting next month, the Swedish that you, your family, your friends have used all your lives would be obsolete and you'd had to relearn a different variation of Swedish - just for the purpose of helping foreigners learn your language? Or just to make it more fun for them?
I don't think you can generalize that learning easier languages (I'm not sure, btw, that simply using a simplified spelling and grammar necessarily makes a language easier to learn) is more fun, more stimulating or more motivating. I personally find those languages most attractive in which I am personally interested. My interest is based on:
- the country, culture and people in which and by whom this language is used and has been used
- the intricacies and idiosyncrasies of its grammar, syntax, lexicon etc.
- the history of language
For instance, I would never learn only the spoken Japanese plus maybe katakana and hiragana just because it's easier; the written kanji are just too fascinating to skip!
In other words, I am attracted to the quirks, forms and expressions that developed through many centuries and the exceptions - they are, after all, that what makes languages interesting and alive.
In any event, idioms are an unreducible part of any language, so this difficulty will affect any language in terms of its learnability to learners. I am just suggesting that we simplify in so far as is possible, not more.
Who would decide what expressions are more learnable than others? How would that be decided? The difficulty of idiomatic expressions depends to a very large extent on the native language of the learner. Some idiomatic expressions are identical in English and German - piece of cake! Others are completely different - lots of studying and immersion necessary. Others are just slightly different - maybe the most tricky ones and those with the highest error rate. But this picture will change drastically if you have a speaker of French and even more so for unrelated languages such as Chinese. Also, what might seem completely logical for speakers of one cultural group might be absolutely incomprehensible for speakers of other groupds.
Idioms:
- Most are not necessary for new learners to learn. Most can be learned at a later stage. For instance "red herring".
- Others, e.g. "to give up", may carry more important meanings (in terms of frequency of use and need). To some extent, these may perhaps be replaced by new expressions, though I have no more concrete suggestion about this right now.
That's how language courses are generally structured anyways. The more common words, context, expressions are learned first. In my life as linguist, I have done extensive work on idiomatic expressions, and my very rough estimate is that the very common idiomatic expressions make up maybe 40% of the expressions; so let's say that by learning the maybe 1000 or so most common expressions, you already get pretty far. However, without knowing a fairly high number of less common and more obscure expressions, there's a chance that you don't understand or misunderstand 60% of a text. And that's obviously not good.
Prepositions:
- It may to some extent be possible to identify core meanings/roles of prepositions and some general principles for how these meanings/roles then can be extended to further meanings/new roles. On that basis, it may perhaps be possible to replace some current uses of prepositions with "more correct" uses (i.e. in terms of these "core meanings" and their extension principles).
What is essential is not that the way the prepositions are used match the ways prepositions are used in the learner's own native language. What is important is that there are some identifiable principles at work and a systematic application of them. If this can be achieved, the use of prepositions will also be made easier to learn.
The spacial prepositions seem easy and have close corresponding forms/usages in related languages.
"On" in the meaning of "on the table" is pretty easy to grasp and associated with the corresponding preposition (if there exists one; we're all very much restricted in number of different, unrelated languages each of us knows). But what about "on" in the meaning of "a talk on marsupials"? Well, there actually is an identifiable principle at work, namely that nouns/verb that connote the transfer of ideas/concepts are generally followed in English by either "on" or "about": a presentation on/about, a discussion on/about... etc.
There are uncountable principles like that at work in a language and it definitely helps the learner to be aware of these principles. So maybe we're not really looking for a simplified language, but a more systematic approach to teaching/learning a language? Would that type of approach be useful for all type of students, though?
I don't think there's any easy way and or shortcut to learn a foreign language (except living in a foreign country as a child). By simplifying spelling and reducing the number of irregular forms, it might be easier at the initial stage, but also very restrictive at a later stage when you want to read the mass of literature created before the introduction of the new version or simply talk to some older folks who never adapted the new version.
Secondly, we are talking about real human lives here. Currently, around the world, lots of young people are wrecking useful time and their heads with trying to learn English. Most of them lose interest quickly, most will never get beyond basic knowledge. Is it worth spending 300 hours per year of a child's life for 6 to 9 years, if the only result will be that they barely know how to say "My name is ..." and perhaps also being filled with resentment to English, school and any suggestion of later studying or learning a foreign language? Why not make that process fun and stimulating instead - by simplifying for instance the writing and the grammar?
I don't think students that after that many years of trying to learn a foreign language can only say "My name is..." will be helped a lot by a simplified version as there still will be enough challenges left to overwhelm their tender minds. A good teacher is much more important. Isn't it their task to make learning fun and stimulating?
[Edited at 2009-02-16 04:48 GMT]
| | | | | Wrong methods... or wrong orientation | Feb 16, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
Secondly, we are talking about real human lives here. Currently, around the world, lots of young people are wrecking useful time and their heads with trying to learn English. Most of them lose interest quickly, most will never get beyond basic knowledge. Is it worth spending 300 hours per year of a child's life for 6 to 9 years, if the only result will be that they barely know how to say "My name is ..." and perhaps also being filled with resentment to English, school and any suggestion of later studying or learning a foreign language? Why not make that process fun and stimulating instead - by simplifying for instance the writing and the grammar?
Honestly, if a teaching method only manages to teach "My name is..." (or add 50 similar simple expressions on top of that) to a child or an adult after 300 hours a year, several years in a row... then either the method is plain wrong or the person is not able to learn a foreign language.
To avoid the frustration you describe, we should be frank and honest to ourselves about the capabilities of our children: if I see no progress in my child in a foreign language, I would not force him/her to waste 2,000 hours of his/her education that way and would favour other things he/she could do nicely and provide hapiness and a future.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
স্পেন
Local time: 18:38
2007 থেকে সদস্য
ইংরেজি
+ ...
| Change the teaching/learning, not the language | Feb 16, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
Honestly, if a teaching method only manages to teach "My name is..." (or add 50 similar simple expressions on top of that) to a child or an adult after 300 hours a year, several years in a row... then either the method is plain wrong or the person is not able to learn a foreign language.
I couldn't agree more, except that children and young adults ARE ALL able to learn a second language, but not necessarily sitting in a classroom being "taught" it by non-native speakers who simply happened to be "good at English" so ended up teaching it, or by native speakers who are not gifted teachers.
The second language needs to "live" for the learner, the way their own languages lives. They need to "use" it rather than simply "learn" it.
Here in France, I see countless examples of what Tomas is talking about - 20-year-olds who have gone through 8 years of English lessons and have gained certificates to prove their good level, but really can't hold any sort of conversation whatsoever. During my years in Holland, I never encountered a young adult who could not get by in English once they got over the barrier of shyness. The difference? Motivation (who else in the world speaks Dutch?) and, above all, original-version TV programmes with subtitles. In France everything is dubbed into French, whereas Dutch people say they learn a lot of English from the TV. They see it as a real-life language and a useful tool that they wish to master.
So, don't let's make English simpler, let's make it more relevant and more interesting to the learners.
Although I'd be all for a slight simplification in spelling - those "ough" words are a nightmare for teachers (though, thought, through, bough, enough, ...). The American plow seems much more useful to me than the British plough.
| | | |
Of course it would be artificial. It would not be constructed from scratch, but it would still be constructed and not a naturally developed form.
I would prefer to see it as a modified form of English. It would be more like a language that has gone through various language reforms. But a reformed language does not amount to an artificial language.
In any event, it would not be "artificial" in the way Esperanto and other typical artificial languages are. It is not subject to many of the usual considerations and objections brought forward against such languages, e.g. that there is no language community, etc.
You'd have to prescribe current speakers/writers of English what version of English they would have to use and to forget about everything they ever learned.
I really cannot see this. I don't know why you think this. It is not part of the idea, and I cannot see that it would follow in any way.
I don't think you can generalize that learning easier languages (I'm not sure, btw, that simply using a simplified spelling and grammar necessarily makes a language easier to learn) is more fun, more stimulating or more motivating.
I think I can generalize that most of the difficulties presented by irregularities in morphology and syntax or involved in the writing system affect a student's interest in learning the language negatively.
Who would decide what expressions are more learnable than others? How would that be decided?
That is a purely pedagogical issue. In any event, I think idioms are a much smaller problem than you seem to think. They follow later in the learning process, and usually don't have as great a negative impact on a learner's motivation to continue learning as other aspects of the language do (grammatical irregularities, weird writing system, etc.).
In my life as linguist, I have done extensive work on idiomatic expressions, and my very rough estimate is that the very common idiomatic expressions make up maybe 40% of the expressions; so let's say that by learning the maybe 1000 or so most common expressions, you already get pretty far. However, without knowing a fairly high number of less common and more obscure expressions, there's a chance that you don't understand or misunderstand 60% of a text. And that's obviously not good.
I think your "40%" figure is probably some 10 times too high. Of course, it depends on how you define or identify idiomatic expressions. Also, even though something would count as an "idiomatic expression" according to your criteria, it does not follow that it necessarily presents a problem to many or most learners of the language.
I don't think there's any easy way and or shortcut to learn a foreign language (except living in a foreign country as a child). By simplifying spelling and reducing the number of irregular forms, it might be easier at the initial stage...
Right!
...but also very restrictive at a later stage when you want to read the mass of literature
Not at all. On the contrary. It is a basis to stand on that will help you to access that literature to the extent that you are interested.
I recently started reading Francis Bacon, and although he wrote in an English that predates modern English with several centuries, I cannot say that my own knowledge of modern English "restricted" me: on the contrary, it helped me to understand his English much more than I would have understood it had I not known any English at all.
...created before the introduction of the new version or simply talk to some older folks who never adapted the new version.
Sorry, I really think you are misunderstanding the idea on this point. The idea is not to create a new English that is supposed to replace the old English. Not at all. The idea is just to create a modified, revised version of English for teaching purposes.
I don't think students that after that many years of trying to learn a foreign language can only say "My name is..." will be helped a lot by a simplified version as there still will be enough challenges left to overwhelm their tender minds.
What a person gets out of his studies has to do with many factors and is not just or necessarily a matter of a person having a "tender mind". One of the factors involved is a person's maintained motivation and interest. And I think it would be a valid pedagogical generalization to say that difficulties based on irrelevant arbitrariness and irregularities tend to decrease a person's motivation and interest in a subject. It wears you down.
A good teacher is much more important. Isn't it their task to make learning fun and stimulating?
Teachers can also be helpful. But that is another issue.
[Edited at 2009-02-16 21:49 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| changing teaching is not sufficient | Feb 16, 2009 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
Here in France, I see countless examples of what Tomas is talking about - 20-year-olds who have gone through 8 years of English lessons and have gained certificates to prove their good level, but really can't hold any sort of conversation whatsoever. During my years in Holland, I never encountered a young adult who could not get by in English once they got over the barrier of shyness. The difference? Motivation (who else in the world speaks Dutch?) and, above all, original-version TV programmes with subtitles. In France everything is dubbed into French, whereas Dutch people say they learn a lot of English from the TV. They see it as a real-life language and a useful tool that they wish to master.
So, don't let's make English simpler, let's make it more relevant and more interesting to the learners.
I think this is a valid approach within a particular pedagogical context. For instance, it seems to be the sort of thing a teacher should do with respect to his or her students.
But if this would be our main strategy for promoting learning of a language that otherwise is complex and difficult to learn, then I see only two outcomes:
Either:
(A) The language will fail to become an international lingua franca; or
(B)
(i) The culture corresponding to the language will to a great extent have to be imposed on the world; combined with
(ii) Painful education of several years imposed on students from an early age.
Having said that, I should again clarify that personally I am not interested in having an international lingua franca in the world and see no point in it. However, for those who do seek such a thing, I believe EVE currently would be the best alternative available. I suspect English as it currently is won't be able to do it, due to its inherent complexity, unless the types of educational systems and the sort of cultural immersion of English as is seen for instance in Northern Europe becomes a standard worldwide. (Which I think would mean a very deplorable situation for humanity.)
[Edited at 2009-02-16 22:14 GMT]
| | | | | English, a lot easier to learn than other languages | Feb 17, 2009 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
Having said that, I should again clarify that personally I am not interested in having an international lingua franca in the world and see no point in it. However, for those who do seek such a thing, I believe EVE currently would be the best alternative available. I suspect English as it currently is won't be able to do it, due to its inherent complexity, unless the types of educational systems and the sort of cultural immersion of English as is seen for instance in Northern Europe becomes a standard worldwide. (Which I think would mean a very deplorable situation for humanity.)
I think that your whole argument to support a simplified English is based on the idea that it is a complex language and that mastering is slow and painstaking. Ok. I admit that even today, after using English professionally all my life in different careers, I would not dare to say I master English. But that does not mean that it is a difficult language to learn. In fact, it is a lot easier to learn than any other languages I can think of, and proof of that is that, even with poorly trained and motivated teachers (who see teaching as a job and not as a passion) and with tremendously inefficient teaching systems, most students of English manage to make a some use of English when confronted with a need to use it.
Think of Spanish, for instance: Isn't it far more complex and difficult to learn than English? Or Swedish. Probably a lot more difficult to learn than English? Or Italian, or any Chinese, or Japanese, or... the list goes on.
I think you picked English for your simplification idea just because it is probably the easiest language to learn to a degree sufficient to communicate simple ideas. Mastering it is a different thing, but how many people need to master the language? Isn't it right that they make an effort to master it if they need it?
And you even want to make a "simpler English" for a purpose I cannot quite grasp if your intention is not to promote a lingua franca. Can you explain why it would be so important to simplify English in particular, and not French, Japanese or Farsi?
| | | | | not easy at all | Feb 17, 2009 |
But that does not mean that it is a difficult language to learn. In fact, it is a lot easier to learn than any other languages I can think of, and proof of that is that, even with poorly trained and motivated teachers (who see teaching as a job and not as a passion) and with tremendously inefficient teaching systems, most students of English manage to make a some use of English when confronted with a need to use it.
I'd say the opposite. Most of these students have gone through at least 9 years of schooling to learn English as well as been subjected to heavy immersion in the English language through TV etc., and it is only because of this that they - mostly haltingly - are able to make use of English. I'd say that this rather shows the inherent difficulty involved in English.
Think of Spanish, for instance: Isn't it far more complex and difficult to learn than English?
It is interesting that you mention Spanish, because this would actually be one of my own examples of a language that probably is _much_ easier than English to learn. One reason is the phonetic writing system: words are written the way they are pronounced. Again, the phonetic system is typically more similar to those of other languages, while English makes use of a large set of quite unusual sounds, diphthongs, etc.
Or Swedish. Probably a lot more difficult to learn than English? Or Italian, or any Chinese, or Japanese, or... the list goes on.
I don't know. We would need a method for measuring a language's degree of learnability to determine how difficult or easy each language is to learn.
I think you picked English for your simplification idea just because it is probably the easiest language to learn to a degree sufficient to communicate simple ideas.
Not at all. I picked it because (1) it is already spoken by many people, (2) it is often proposed as a lingua franca, (3) in many areas of the world it is de facto already a lingua franca, (4) there is a lot of interest among many people, especially young people, around the world to learn this particular language.
The learnability of English is not high, but low, and this is a problem which I guess the EVE idea is intended to solve.
Mastering it is a different thing, but how many people need to master the language? Isn't it right that they make an effort to master it if they need it?
That is true, and that is the essential basis for learning any language. The problem with English and other difficult languages is that people run into sorts of problems and difficulties that they are not interested in (such as arbitrary exceptions and non-phonetic writing systems) and therefore gradually lose interest.
And you even want to make a "simpler English" for a purpose I cannot quite grasp if your intention is not to promote a lingua franca.
I don't think an international lingua franca is particularly important to have. (The only point I can see would be to facilitate circulation of and access to informative literature.) The reason I started this thread is just that the idea popped up and I thought it could be interesting to discuss, especially from point of view of the often-recurring idea of creating an international lingua franca.
Can you explain why it would be so important to simplify English in particular, and not French, Japanese or Farsi?
(I dont think it is "important"...)
Yes, I can explain: English is (unlike Japanese and Farsi) often proposed as an international lingua franca. However, its inherent difficulty presents an obstacle. (I would argue that it cannot become an international lingua franca in its present form except through heavy cultural and economic imposition on other countries.) That's where the simplification idea comes in: make the language easier to learn, and you have a good candidate for an international lingua franca.
[Edited at 2009-02-17 21:50 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-02-17 21:51 GMT]
| | | | | বিষয়ের পেজ: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Artificially Re-Created English as international lingua franca | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
