Reading the article “Is this the end of the English language as we know it?” by Robert McCrum in The Observer 09.05.10 I felt inspired to write about “Globish” in relation to ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) research.
The idea of Globish is an intriguing and no doubt attractive one for those looking to popularise some form of lingua franca version of English and make the learning of English as quick and simple as possible. The fragmentation of English a la Latin into the various Englishes such as Singlish is a natural form of language change or lingua franca because they serve a specific community and reflect its linguistic needs. Globish is different as it is artificial. Functioning within a language community can usually only be judged by those inside the group rather than prescribed by those outside it. Globish is a form of communication but it does not require a name because its speakers also speak something else; learner English. People who speak Globish simplify their speech depending on their language knowledge in the same way as all learners. If they do not know a word in English, most speakers will circumvent the problem by describing the word using other resources in their lexicon.
If we look at the example an example of Globish we can see the problems:
In Globish 'chat' becomes 'speak casually to each other', however, this implies the learner knows that in this string speak is a transitive verb taking the preposition to, the construction each other which is linguistically complex and the adverb casually which is challenging in terms of connation and pronunciation. Surely learning the simple verb chat would be easier and more useful?
However, there are Globish simplifications which do work as in the following example, "Globish is the gateway to global conversation," which would become "Globish helps you talk to people from other countries." http://www.thestar.com/article/598048. Yet, is it not likely that a learner would naturally come up with the Globish version anyway given that the Globish version contains words with high frequency which many learners would have acquired by pre-intermediate level?
In this example the Globish version tackles the simplification of nouns through description but the problem of the multi word verb “to sing along” remains.
Say it in English
I went to my niece and nephew's party the other weekend. I played the piano and we were all singing along when a mouse ran out from behind the sofa with a piece of peach in its mouth.
Say it in Globish
At the party of my children's brother the other day, I played an instrument with black and white keys and we all sang along. Then an animal chased by cats ran out from behind the seat with a piece of fruit in its mouth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/dec/03/features.review37
The 1,500 core vocabulary of Globish is supposed to be all you need to communicate in Globish but it does not mirror other frequency lists such the Oxford 3000. Academically researched frequency lists include many grammatical words which are necessary to make communication more meaningful. The interesting thing is that many of these words are known by users of English because they form the basis of most beginner and intermediate courses of instruction.
Studies by academics such as Jenkins, Seidlhoffer and Dewey have presented much more rigorous research on English language change in the field of ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) than the observations of Nerriere. Whilst I acknowledge that Globish has made some interesting observations on the style of communication adopted by business people using English as a common language, they will obviously all be at varying stages of mastering English and therefore just adopting Globish as a lingua franca is unlikely to provide fully operational communication without breakdowns of understanding. Many of the simplifications used in non-native – non-native speaker interaction noticed by Jenkins and Seidlhoffer are grammatical and phonological rather than lexical.
So really what I would like to ask other teachers and bloggers is whether Globish can teach us anything about language change and whether it should or could influence our teaching? Should we take anything from amateur linguists’ findings as well as those from academics? And has anyone read the book, “Globish: How the English language became the world’s language? By Robert McCrum?
